Draft Board Numero Uno
OK folks, the season is over. It's time to start thinking about the draft (as if we weren't doing that already).
Our first 2010 Hoopus Draft board is below the fold.
A few things before we get started.
NCAA Tourney play is not taken into consideration. What that means for us here at Hoopus is that it is time to tune out the NCAA tourney performances and post version #1 of our post-season draft board. Why do we tune out the field of 64?
An NBA insider once told me that if you want to be drafted high, there's nothing like playing well in the NCAA tournament. That's intuitive, but also a bit of an insult to the NBA decision-makers. In what wacky world would a few flashy, luck-infused wins in a single elimination tournament overwhelm the combined insight of the years of scouting, interviews, measurements, evaluations and the like that teams tell us they perform?
Nevertheless, Berri and Schmidt have found the claim to be amazingly true. "A player who appears in the Final Four," they write, "can improve his draft position by about 12 spots." 12 spots! That's a ton! Other factors that they find affect draft position include points scored, shooting efficiency, assists, steals, blocked shots and height (relative to position). Interestingly, staying in school, but not improving as a player, was cause to fall an average of five spots in the draft -- which would seem to be an argument for coming out earlier, especially when you consider the author's evidence that even years after the fact, draft position has a heavy influence on playing time.
...
And here's the kicker. The authors found that playing for an NCAA champion in the year drafted is a statistically significant predictor that you will be less productive in the NBA.
Randy Foye and Jonny Flynn are Timberwolves exhibits 1 and 1a in overvaluing post-season college play in the face of a significantly larger body of regular-season work that suggests a different type and quality of player. One-and-done tourneys are no good way to judge college talent. There is too much that could go wrong in this small and quirky of a sample size to make any sort of conclusions about Player X, Y, or Z. If we ran the Wolves' front office, this is the time of year where we'd take a looonnnnngggg trip to Machu Picchu and the Inca Trail. There's not a very good chance that you are going to learn something about a player over the course of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 games that you shouldn't have already gathered over the course of the previous 30.
The Hoopus Score does not take into consideration differences in conferences and strength of schedule. I tinkered with a version of the score that would allow for this but I think it works much better by subjectively putting players into tiers and then using the score to rank them. I have also adjusted the Hoopus Score so that it doesn't try to get 15 as the number of an average player. This time, I did away with trying to find an average and simply weighted efficiency scores according to things like position and age. I also added in two composite scores. The first one documents the ratio between usage rate and true shooting percentage and the 2nd one adds together block% and steal%. All of these numbers are then added together before the players are placed into subjective tiers and ranked.
The big change with this year's number is that I took all of the things I didn't use in the score (strength of schedule, conference ranking, height, weight, age, eyeball ranking, etc) and used them to place the players into tiers, which were then ranked out according to their own Hoopus Score. I have provided an un-tiered list at the end of the draft board so you can see how everyone played out and how I put everyone into tiers.
With no further delay, here is the first version of our post season draft board:
- DeMarcus Cousins (135.387)- Holy crap did this guy have a great year. He does everything you could possibly want from a big. He shoots a high rate from 2, he draws a huge number of fouls (8.4/40), he blocks shots (7.9%), he owns the offensive glass (2nd in the nation with a 20%), and he carries a massive usage rate without turning the ball over a ton. This guy deserves consideration for the #1 pick. There have been all sorts of rumors about his character but I honestly have no idea what the real deal is. Here's hoping the Wolves are putting in a ton of leg work on this kid because he's clearly one of the top 2 or 3 prospects in the draft, especially if his whispered red flags are really nothing more than adjustable attitude problems. If he measures out as having legit NBA center height and length, he'll be a tough prospect to pass over...no matter where the Wolves end up drafting. Last year Blake Griffin put up a modified Hoopus Score of 136.727. He was the highest ranked big (and player) in the past 5 years. Cousins nearly matches him. It's really hard to overstate just how well Cousins performed this year. His offensive rebounding (20% vs 14.1%) and shot blocking (7.9% vs 3.6%) were well above and beyond what Griffin put up, which are things you like to see in a young big. Cousins also got to the line at a better clip (73.1% vs 70.6%) and turned it over less (14.8% vs 18.1%). Impressive stat: 19.2 OReb%, which is good for 2nd in the nation. Unimpressive stat: He doesn't have any. His red flags are all off the court...or, sometimes on the court, as is the case with him jawing at Coach Calipari during the Elite Eight loss to West Virginia.
- Evan Turner (129.271)- He is a solid prospect at the 2 or 3. He boasts the 6th highest usage rate in the country with the 9th highest assist rate. He draws 5.6 fouls per 40 minutes with a FT rate of 39.3. He turns the ball over a tad too much (21.5%) but he also boasts a combined 5.9% block/steal rate. He can also rebound the hell out of the ball, which is never a bad thing. His big draw back is that he doesn't possess the upper-level athleticism you'd like to see on the wing. The big unknown about Turner is how well he can play off the ball in the NBA. He's not going to post a 34.4 usage rate (or its equivalent) in the pros. How much of his effectiveness is tied to the fact that he always had the ball in his hands? Whatever the case, for those of you who have seen Ohio State play this season, you know full well that Turner was the entire team. He had to carry that big of a load and it is amazing that a single player was able to carry his team as far as Turner did with the Buckeyes. Also, in terms of the Wolves, Turner is the type of player that can play well off the pick and roll (the guy is a threat to shoot, pass, and drive when he comes off a pick) and in the Triangle. He's also the closest thing in this draft to the type of player you can throw the ball to during a bad stretch of play and say "end this". Impressive stat: He carried the 8th highest ARate in the country while taking nearly a 3rd of his team's shots while he was on the court while carrying an insane 34.7 usage rate. He is a fantastic defensive rebounder for his position. He also carries a TS% of 58.1%. Lots of possessions + lots of assists + lots of rebounds + good shooting = you can't pass this kid up. Unimpressive stat: 21.5 TO%.
- Derrick Favors (123.267)- Favors gets the bump because of the "what could be" factor. He played on a team with some seriously rec-league guards that really did him no favors in getting him the damn ball. He carries a nice TS% with some solid signs of being a guy who can block shots and play good defense. I don't think he's quite the uber-athlete that many people seem to believe he is for his position, but he's definitely one of the better prospects in this top-heavy draft class. He certainly compares well to recent big prospects in their freshman year and he rates well in eFG, TS%, OR%, and free throw proficiency while making more than 60% of his shots from 2. If he measures out with decent length, he'll be worth an even bigger look. Impressive stat: Did I mention the .613 shooting from 2? This guy also clears the boards (12.3/20.5 o/d reb%). It will forever remain a mystery as to why Georgia Tech didn't get this guy more shots. Unimpressive stat: 23.3 TORate.
- John Wall (122.268)- For a quick comparison, Derrick Rose posted a modified Hoopus Score of 121.971 in his only year in college under John Calipari. Check out some of these comparisons between the two players (Wall/Rose): TS%: (56.9/56), OR% (2.5/5), FTr (54.4/47), steal% (2.8/2.3), assist% (34.5/30.4), turnover rate (24/19.1). Both players feature mind-bending athleticism and NBA level length for their position. Rose played on a better team than Wall so he carries a better ORtg and he had more back court help with CDR so there was always someone with more experience there in the back court to help him with the ball handling duties. Both players carried an almost identical load: 27.3 usage rate for Wall and 27.2 for Rose. The bottom line for this draft is this: Would you take Derrick Rose with the top pick if he were in this draft in place of John Wall? Would you be even more inclined to take a player nearly identical to Rose plus the chance to be better on defense, better at getting to the line, better from inside the arc, and who may even really be 6'4" and with longer arms? Impressive stat: 34.8 Assist%, good for 26th in the country. Unimpressive stat: .325 from beyond the arc. Strike against him: highly questionable shooting from outside and a mid-range game that is not nearly as developed as Derrick Rose's. He also did not display the type of take-it-all-over ability that Rose started to flash (and is currently flashing) during his freshman season. I think he will end up being a more complete player than Rose, but not as gifted as a scorer.
- James Anderson: (129.178)- This year's James Harden is the first pick on the board should the Wolves lose out on the four most talented players in the draft. He is a fantastically talented scorer who may be a bit of a disappointment on the defensive end of the court. He carries a TS of almost 60% while getting to the line at a fair clip and not turning the ball over. In a relatively weak draft from here on out, Anderson is the best non-Turner wing prospect on the board. Impressive stat: He carried a 59.6 TS% on a 30.9 usage rate while only turning it over to the tune of 13 times for every 100 possessions. Yes please. Unimpressive stat: nothing really stands out on the stat sheet but this guy simply did not show any signs of being able to defend. That quality probably makes him an ideal candidate for the Wolves.
- Cole Aldrich: (128.14)- Aldrich didn't quite put up the numbers a lot of people expected during his junior season and Kansas made an early exit from the tourney, but the fact remains that Aldrich does two things very well that will never go away: Blocking shots and getting rebounds. Yes, there are some other bigs who are more athletic and flashy, and he needs some work on the offensive end of the court, but the guy has legit size, can defend, and gets rebounds. He will make Oklahoma City a very happy ball club. Impressive stat: 13.0 block% (5th in the nation) with a 25.7 DR%. Again, this guy will defend and rebound with huge size. Unimpressive stat: .562 shooting from 2. When you're that big, and you're that close to the basket...
- Elliot Williams: (124.385)- This is where things start to get iffy. The Duke transfer put up some excellent offensive numbers at Memphis but if you have watched him in action (especially near the end of the year) you know that he has some very Foye-esque flaws in his game. He's kind of an in-between guard with finishing issues. Randy Foye, Rashad McCants...the Wolves know this type of player and even though he is rated high during a weak draft class, they should stay as far away as possible. Impressive stat: Gets to the line with a 66% free throw rate. Unimpressive stat: many kamikaze drives end with him being unable to finish. If he doesn't get the calls in the NBA, his game will go to pieces. This guy is a 3rd guard in the NBA.
- Ed Davis: (124.051)- Davis was unable to make it through the season and I'm not really sure what type of player he really is, but 6'10 with 57% shooting from 2 while getting to the line and cleaning the boards is pretty hard to overlook. Impressive stat: 28th in the nation in block%, 45th in the nation in DR%, and he shoots .578 from 2. Unimpressive stat: 6.7 assist rate.
- Elias Harris: (121.171)- This is an even more potential-based pick than Davis. It would be nice to see a year or two more from the small forward prospect in college but if he comes out this season, there's enough on the books to place him above other wing players like Wes Johnson and Aminu.
- Greg Monroe: (120.743)- Here is where the red flags start to come into play. He can really pass the ball but he can also really turn it over and not rebound as well as you would like to see a guy rebound from that position. Monroe is one of those guys you hope is available with the Charlotte pick because there is no way he should be considered in the top 10.
- Wes Johnson: (120.5)- Wes Johnson is going to get a lot of mentions with Wolves fans but he has some fairly significant red flags. If he were drafted by the Wolves, he would start the season as a 23 year old swing man from Syracuse (hello zone!) who needs work on his handle. Midway through the season he went through a dry spell that reminded everyone of the player he was at Iowa State: a nice player but not someone to consider with a top 5 pick.
- Jeff Taylor: (119.37)- Another potential-based pick who definitely needs another year to develop in college. He faded near the end of the year but the tools are all there...except outside shooting, which is horrific.
- Willie Warren: (118.02)- Warren is probably one guy who should be used as a case study for those players who need to leave after a single year of college. The kid had everything going for him next to Blake Griffin. He waited a year and regressed. That being said, he's still a guy who put up nice numbers as a freshman and has shown enough talent to play at the next level.
- Al Faroq Aminu: (117.757)- I honestly have no idea how to classify this guy. He's a tweener forward and his athleticism and length will serve him well in the pros, but is he the type of guy the Wolves could use on the wing and with their current core?
- Patrick Patterson: (117.335)- Which player had the highest ORtg and TS% on Kentucky? This guy. He is the CDR of Calipari-coached power forwards who will be able to contribute to his team on day one. Impressive stat: 128.7 ORtg (5th in the country) with a 10.5 TO% (44th in the country). This guy is going to be a very solid mid-to-late 1st round pick. Strike against him: His defensive rebounding should be better.
- Xavier Henry: (115.285)- He had a big in-season slump with some nice play down the stretch. He has nice size and a good outside shot.
- Da'Sean Butler: (113.691)- How bad is the injury? Not a world-beater by any stretch of the imagination but a nice pick late in the 1st/early 2nd.
- Kyle Singler: (112.97)- Singler is one of those guys who will need to be able to make the outside shot if he is going to succeed at the next level. If he can do that, he will be a nice role player. I know we don't place much stock in tourney play, but as you could see during the NCAAs, the guy has some legit defensive instincts and he should be able to be a functional two-way rotation player between 15-20 minutes a night.
- Devin Ebanks: (108.471)- Another guy who gets a pass because of his defensive potential at the next level as a role player.
- Eric Bledsoe: (106.657)- He got to star next to John Wall and he started to show signs of being able to shoot the 3 near the end of the year. Impressive stat: nothing jumps out. Unimpressive stat: 27.5 TO%. Run away.
Tier Three:
- Hassan Whiteside: 130.19- Red flags from here to the coast. Old for his class, academic problems, didn't dominate Jerome James, and so on and so forth. Avoid.
- Jarvis Varnado: 129.721- I really thought about bumping him up to tier two but at the end of the day his size will be too much of an issue in the pros. He could end up being a good backup at the 4, something the Wolves do not need at this point.
- Larry Sanders: 128.81- He has excellent length and could be worth a flier late in the draft.
- AJ Ogilvy: 127.52- May be worth a peak in the 2nd round.
- Artisom Parakhoski: 125.96- This draft definitely has its share of backup bigs and Parakhoski is another big body that could likely be had late in the first round or early 2nd.
- W. Witherspoon: 122.15- I'm not really sure why he doesn't get more mention...for a late first/early second type of selection.
- Paul George: 121.771- George is only a sophomore so I'm really debating bumping him up to the 2nd tier. He's probably worth more of a flier than someone like Eric Bledsoe. Ultimately, I think I bump him up to the 2nd tier before the draft.
- Charles Garcia: 119.9- Started the season out like gangbusters and ended it busted.
- Epke Udoh: 118.3- Have you seen his shooting numbers? He is a big with an eFG below 50%. WARNING, WARNING, WARNING!!!
- D. Saunders: 117.87- Here's another guy that I think will move up to tier two. He's probably a better selection than Devin Ebanks and he rebounds well. This is a guy who I like a lot for the late first round for the Wolves.
- Gani Lawal: 116.351- Not much to say about the guy.
- Jon Scheyer: 116.171- Might be a nice 2nd round pick.
- Sherron Collins: 109.91- Avoid at all costs.
- Stanley Robinson: 109.05- There are quite a few wing prospects in the draft that would be much better than Mr. Robinson.
- DeMarcus Cousins: 135.387
- Hassan Whiteside: 130.19
- Jarvis Varnado: 129.721
- Evan Turner: 129.271
- James Anderson: 129.178
- Larry Sanders: 128.81
- Cole Aldrich: 128.14
- AJ Ogilvy: 127.52
- Artisom Parakhoski: 125.96
- Elliot Williams: 124.385
- Ed Davis: 124.051
- Derek Favors: 123.267
- W. Witherspoon: 122.15
- John Wall: 122.268
- Paul George: 121.771
- Elias Harris: 121.171
- Greg Monroe: 120.743
- Wes Johnson: 120.5
- Charles Garcia: 119.9
- Jeff Taylor: 119.37
- Epke Udoh: 118.3
- Willie Warren: 118.02
- D. Saunders: 117.87
- Al Faroq Aminu: 117.757
- Patrick Patterson: 117.335
- Gani Lawal: 116.351
- Jon Scheyer: 116.171
- Xavier Henry: 115.285
- Da'Sean Butler: 113.691
- Kyle Singler: 112.97
- Sherron Collins: 109.91
- Stanley Robinson: 109.05
- Devin Ebanks: 108.471
Well folks, that about does it. This is a relatively deep draft for big men and a fairly weak one for guards. There are 4 guys at the top who all Wolves fans should feel good about, 2 or 3 risky potential picks, and then a whole lot of bench players. It's a deep draft in the sense that there should be a lot of guys who can play minutes, but it's a very thin one in terms of sure things and starters.
Right now, my Wolves draft board looks like this:
- DeMarcus Cousins
- Evan Turner
- Derrick Favors
- John Wall
- James Anderson
- Ed Davis
- Elias Harris
- Cole Aldrich
- Wes Johnson
- Jeff Taylor
- Al Faroq Aminu
- Patrick Patterson
- Xavier Henry
- Greg Monroe
- Kyle Singler
- Larry Sanders
- Paul George
- D. Saunders
What say you?
478 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
P.S.
If we get the 5th pick you might as well just move this team to Vegas or Seattle.
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions
I refuse to even consider this scenario
and hope it’s a mute point in four weeks. I can’t even imagine the devastation it would cause to the few Wolves fans out there at this time.
"Moot" is the word
Whether or not there is one mute swan in a passing migratory group of 300 noisy tundra swans is a moot point for most people, because its presence there doesn’t make much difference to anyone but a birder.
Mute = unable to produce sound.
Moot = having no practical significance.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Mute is used incorrectly like that constantly
even in print. I dunno why.
So is “I could care less” when the person means “I couldn’t care less”.
Also, “dominate” when they mean “dominant”. Like “He was a dominate (sic) player in the paint”.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Apr 26, 2010 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Let's turn "moot" into a verb
Oh, wait, it already is one. And one that doesn’t actually line up with its adjectival meaning. Argh!
How hard must English be to learn? I tried to explain to a Hmong family how to write checks the other day. Impossibly hard to convey the abstractions involved, for a while. Right now they may be buying several houses using personal checks.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
kind of funny
I’ve always said “moot”, but have never really seen it written, so I just assumed I was wrong in thinking it was moot, kind of like hearing words in songs that aren’t really what is said.
"Jesse's girl": the perfect moot/mute storm
“….I wanna tell her that I love her
but the point is prob’ly moot.”
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Thank you
I’ve been trying to think of that one all day. “Spiderface” is awesome — that one is new to me.
by Madison Dan on Apr 27, 2010 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
By the one dude on the board with an avatar from the Office. That’s classic.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Since we're ranting
“Complimentary” = saying something nice
“Complementary” = fitting together well
People love to use this term in sports contexts, and they almost always spell it incorrectly (using the first spelling). It hurts my eyes every time.
One more: “getting untracked” vs. “getting on track”. People who prefer the former should try to name one thing that can go on tracks, but works better when it is not on them.
We'd pay you a compliment on posting this
if it felt…. safer.
I s’pose “untracked” could at least provide a break from people thinking “outside the box.” (Using the expression “thinking outside the box”: a clear sign that you’re thinking conventionally, or inside said box.) Sure, it suggests a train wreck, but at least the train would be off its usual route, thinking freely. Personally I would prefer metaphors to do with rivers and their courses, though.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I've been confused by untracked too
It is now apparently in the dictionary as an ‘informal’ usage:
Informal. achieving a superior level of performance after a slow start: The team suddenly got untracked and began to score.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/untracked
I feel bad for English teachers. “No, that is wrong. Well, at least until enough people repeat the wrong usage enough times. Then it will be added to the dictionary and will become right. I will now light myself on fire.”
The minute “ain’t” gets in the dictionary I’m seeking a bomb shelter. The end will be near.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Apr 27, 2010 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions
Duck and cover
Dictionaries do reflect usages like “ain’t.”
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I hope no one from the Wolves front office ever glances at this mock draft
or does so only to see what not to do.
- If the Wolves get the #1 overall pick and use it to take DeMarcus Cousins, I’m going to buy a Brandon Jennings or Andrew Bogut jersey. Kahn will be the laughing stock of the NBA and the Wolves will reset their rebuilding plan to 2020.
- James Anderson is a D-League level player. He doesn’t belong in the Top 5 of this list or the Top 25 of this list.
- Xavier Henry should be a lot higher than 13.
- Not considering the NCAA tournament in these rankings is kind of ridiculous. Yeah, why would we care what a player does when there is a lot of pressure on the line? What could that possibly tell us about him and his future? Of course, the NCAA tournament shouldn’t be the only factor. But that would be like a college admissions board just throwing out ACT/SAT results entirely.
Thank you.
I agree with everything you said.
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions
What is it about Henry that makes him so much better than Anderson?
He was younger, that counts. What else? Genuinely curious.
I never know what to make of the swath of 6’5-6’7" guys floating around. It seems to me that, outside of the absolute can’t miss level guys, there’s a lot of interchangeability, and success is more predicated on opportunity+attitude than anything else.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions
All Anderson can do is shoot. And while his shoot is pretty good
when that’s not falling, he can’t do anything else. That’s why he disappeared in the tourney. His ballhandling skills are weak and he has below average athleticism.
Henry, on the other hand, is more aggressive and successful at taking the ball to the basketb and isn’t as one-dimensional. I think he looks like a Rip Hamilton-type player in the pros.
Well, maybe
I have to admit, while I saw Henry several times, I only saw Anderson a little bit. My reaction to Henry was that he was fairly passive and merely a jump shooter. In fact, Anderson got to the line more (per minute) than Henry did; of course he was much more of his team’s offense than Henry was.
I thought all year that Henry was somewhat overrated. Now it seems like he may go in the mid-first, which seems about right.
I dunno. I’m often wrong.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think Henry is by any means a sure thing
you could be right about him. But after seeing Anderson get absolutely destroyed by Iman Shumpert in round 1 of the tourney, I have a hard time believing that he wouldn’t be destroyed on a regular basis in the NBA.
See, this is where I agree with SnP
If you rely too much on one game, you run serious risks of getting it wrong. You might be right about Anderson, I really don’t know. But when you talk about him as a d-leaguer, then bring up the one game…I’m not buyin’.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
It's too small of a sample size..
…and he played in one of the toughest conferences in the country and excelled. It’s the whole James Harden thing all over again. He played lousy in the tourney.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Perhaps, but the Harden argument cuts both ways as I think he had a pretty disappointing rookie season for the 3rd pick in the draft.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 26, 2010 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions
He had a better season
than both of the guys picked before him, and all but three of the 57 guys picked after him. Despite being 20 years old, he’s at least the 4th best player on a team that won 50 games and has the defending champions wondering WTF is going on.
I’d say he did okay.
If Turner is rated a better player now
than Harden was a year ago, it just seems to me to be another reason the Wolves should be more than content to grab Turner and assume he’ll be a ten year starter.
Here's a question...
Harden for Love: which team says no?
by pagingstanleyroberts on Apr 27, 2010 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Hmmmmm . . .
that’s a good one. Too many other variables—is Al tradeable? Is the draft over? Whom did the Wolves get?
Ounce for ounce, I guess it’s the Wolves who say, “no.” I really think/hope they’ll do whatever they can to keep Love and get rid of Al. Although, Harden’s a good example of they type of player that may make the Wolves move Love and keep Al.
Love would be a perfect fit
next to Durant. The rebounding and outside shooting would be a great fit for a team with an incredible scorer.
Harden would help the Wolves, but I think OKC gets the better of the deal. A three team trade could be interesting, if the 3rd team has a good SF or high pick for the Wolves. If Utah got the third pick, this could be an example of a workable deal for three teams.
If the Wolves have their own lottery pick in the top 2, this could put them in a position to try to land Wall and Turner, especially if the Wolves are sitting at #1 and #3.
Evans, Curry, Jennings for sure, but there is an argument that Thornton and Collison are better too. And after a lukewarm rookie season, I’d bet most GMs would take the potential of Rubio’s rights over Harden today as well.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 27, 2010 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Really?
Had it been on local TV only, less important? :) I kid.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
I completely disagree
I understand your point, but I think it’s wrong. A bad game can happen any time. Even if you are a believer in “clutch” performers, you can’t judge a player on one game. James Anderson got them to the tournament, including some huge performances in key games.
27 and 8 in beating Kansas doesn’t count as a big game in a big spot?
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed
Anderson is going to be a complimentary player in the NBA so to look at his performance in one game where the entire defense was geared to stop him seems a little extreme.
Tim Duncan just had a terrible game
That guy is a stiff. San Antonio needs to dump him as soon as they can if they’re truly serious about contending.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
But after seeing Anderson get absolutely destroyed by Iman Shumpert in round 1 of the tourney, I have a hard time believing that he wouldn’t be destroyed on a regular basis in the NBA.
Just sayin’.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
But there's having a bad game because your shot isn't falling
or because you’re missing rotations on D, or other things that can go right or wrong on a game by game basis. Then there is having a bad game because you’re not athletic enough to beat your man or guard your man on D. The first type of bad game isn’t a big deal. The second type is because it shows your flaws.
Did you watch the Kansas game? He got the rim routinely and made numerous beautiful passes on top of killing it from outside.
I just don’t get the logic in saying that one game is a microcosm of all his flaws without giving credit to another game where said flaws were not an issue and he tore up a great team.
I agree with what jballer_13 said up above. He’s not going to be a #1 guy in the NBA, he’s going to be an opportunistic off the ball scorer.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I only saw Hasheem Thabeet a couple times a year ago
But I noticed how DuJuan Blair just manhandled him, which made me want to stay away from Thabeet, figuring at best he is a long term project. While I agree small sample size needs to be factored, a large sample size can also be deceptive. In the Thabeet case, the large sample size showed what he could do against inferior competition, but the small sample size may have exposed a weakness when he plays good competition.
by Rumblebee on Apr 26, 2010 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
solid analysis
the argument is that the large sample was not a representative sample of NBA competition. Thus, it’s largeness does not make it anymore useful.
It’s like seeing a household fire extinguisher put out small fires thousands of times and then bringing it to a 5-story blaze and being upset that it’s not working.
The small sample, was representative of NBA competition, or at least more representative.
Sample size is not the issue, the composition of the sample is the issue .
Good stuff, Rumblebee.
by littleboxes on Apr 27, 2010 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions
I watched Thabeet a ton
throughout his Uconn career and I see things differently. He picked up the game of basketball very late in life. His improvement while at Uconn was remarkable. He improved each year while there. I suspect the same thing will happen to him in the NBA. It will probably be rough going for the next couple of years, but eventually he is going to be a pretty disruptive defensive presence that also holds his own on the boards. I think it’s too early to criticize that pick.
by Rascal Flatts on Apr 28, 2010 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I think Anderson and Henry are pretty similar
Anderson is more polished but has less upside while Henry is the opposite. I would be happy with either player at #16.
Henry
reminds me a little of Wally. 6’7, built, kind of slow, weak ballhandler but lights out shooter. Am I way off with this?
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Henry is a noticeably better defender and not quite as pure of a shooter as Wally (though he’s younger), but it’s not bad… not bad at all.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Yeah, obviously not a 100% comp, as they never are. Each player is a unique, like a snowflake, and all that jazz. He’s probably a little more athletic, but Henry never impressed me with his speed or quickness at all. Where I see Wally in him is in his profile as a lights out shooter who’s a very strong 6’7 and lacks a polished handle. All of the drives I can remembe him making were textbook Wally – awkward, kind of out of control, but effective more often than not due to his strength and the fact that he kept it simple.
Man, how awesome would it be to pick up Henry AND Turner.. That’d be awesome.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Man, how awesome would it be to pick up Henry AND Turner.. That’d be awesome.
Score 1 for not reading what you post before posting it!
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
That's one of those statements that keeps giving
So many things…
- Order of Henry and Turner
- Saying it’d be awesome after asking how awesome would it be
- Potential double entendre of “pick up”
Okay, three things, but still… quality, pure quality. If this had the smiley faces like on KFAN I’d given you the clap, winking thumbs up, and beer drinking ones.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Awesome. I’m visualizing it now :)
Me and posting at work tends to equal rushed, frequently nonsensical posts.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Ahhh hahah. You find out some interesting things when your brain is on autopilot! My sig only makes this that much more awe… I mean great.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Great?
It makes it LEGEN, wait for it… and I hope you’re not lactose intolerant cuz the next part of that is gonna be, DAIRY!
You missed one thing in textbook Wally drives:
Dribbling the ball off your own foot, then looking around for a foul.
My own opinion on Henry v. Anderson
Henry will be a lot better of a shooter in the league right away and his game will translate a lot faster. Within 2 years people will be saying that Andersonw as clearly the better selection because he will probably score a lot more and possibly more efficiently (my guess is that it will be a wash in that respect).
But the reason I think Henry will be the better selection: I think he will do more to help his team win. I think he will be a better defender (half the game) and I think he will play his role better than Anderson will. I also think Anderson will probably cost more for more scoring, but less production… that’s just me though, obviously it could turn out the exact opposite. I just see Henry as a kid with his head on straight and with a skill that translates well (spot up shooter with a decent all around game).
Does Anderson remind anyone else of
Antoine Wright? It’s not a flattering comparison, and not a very informed one at that. I’m thinking that I link the two players because of their position/size and similarly situated schools (same conference, both second banana in their state). I remember wanting the Wolves to pick Wright over McCants at the time. A real Sophie’s choice, that.
Would you rather have...
Beasley, Love, Mayo than Derrick Rose?
Oh wait, Love is involved… don’t answer that.
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions
OK
I really like Love, but come on, I’m sure most of us would take Rose over Love. If that had happened, then I’m sure there wouldn’t be so many people ragging on Flynn, ‘cause he wouldn’t be here.
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Apr 26, 2010 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I am no fan of Beasley or Mayo...
I definitely would have drafted Beasley and regretted it though…
As for Rose, I’d take him over Mayo and Beasley right now, but I don’t see what the big deal is.
I don't want to stress my distaste for him too much...
I just don’t see his game every elevating to #1 on a contending team status.
Tune in and enjoy
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=300427005
Derrick Rose would be a #1 on a contending team right now if the Bulls weren’t starting backup caliber guys at SG and PF. Plus he is now 2 for 2 on taking his game up 20 notches at playoff time.
but...
They’re also playing the Cavs in the first round because he didn’t do it consistently enough during the regular season.
Hey watch this...
Derrick Rose last night
12-27 fg (in what world is that good)
+/- of -6, it looks more like it was his teammates that needed a higher caliber PG.
And he managed to diversify his game by pulling down 3 boards and making 6 assists.
Derrick Rose is who I thought he was. Super-Flynn.
Rose is improving fast...
and only 21-years old. He is not the purest of point guards, but so what? Quick comparison to D-Wade’s closest-in-age season (rookie year):
Wade
Age – 22
PPG – 16.2
MPG – 34.9
FG% – 46.5
APG – 4.5
RPG – 4.0
WS – 4.6
PER – 17.6
Rose
Age – 21
PPG – 20.8
MPG – 36.8
FG% – 48.9
APG – 6.0
RPG – 3.8
WS – 6.0
PER – 18.6
Physically, Rose is very similar to Dwyane Wade. He is probably 1" shorter, with what looks on tv to be the same type of vertical jump and even-greater speed. He improved a lot from age 20 to 21, and if he starts next year healthy (his biggest problem this past season) he should see another big bump in stats and Bulls wins. If he defies the odds and stays at 21 & 6 with average efficiency, I’ll agree with you that he can’t lead a contender.
It's kind of funny being a Wolves fan
The difficulty in judging Rose is similar to Love. Same draft, and each player is on a team with a couple glaring weaknesses.
I'm more concered about claims of his current superstardom..
His flaws are the kind that do typically get ironed out over the course of a career…
Wade is definitely his best case scenario, but is Wade really a PG? Would he need a distributing SG next to him? Seems a bit of a tweener to me, but I get why people like his “upside”. We shall see.
Wade's not a PG...
but a superstar, do-it-all type that Rose should aspire to become. Watching Rose at Memphis, I never thought he looked like a pure point guard. His best plays involved taking it to the basket to score. He looked more like a young Michael Jordan than a young Chris Paul or John Stockton. I think Rose would benefit from a couple of things — a scoring power forward and another spot-up shooter at the wing. Also, VDN’s offensive strategy gets cruficied by some experts… I don’t watch enough Bulls to have a big opinion on it, but if it’s true, maybe Rose would benefit from better coaching.
I was really surprised how poor Wade's stats looked at 22..
I guess I didn’t watch much of the Heat outside of the playoffs. Was he a completely different player during that playoff run? He certainly was not that inefficient the rest of his career (Doubled his WS/40 over the next 2 years).
If Derrick Rose manages to match the trajectory of D Wade in terms of improvement (which seems entirely possible given that he is younger and less-experienced) I will be dead wrong on my assessment of him.
I can't remember...
rookie D-Wade very well. He obviously improved pretty quickly — I am expecting something similar from Rose, but have nothing much to back that on but watching his style of play and reading things about his work ethic. He sounds like a guy that is obsessed with being great, like few pros really are, once they hit the bigtime.
Sometimes, I prefer the conventional wisdom
Curry > Flynn was conventional wisdom that I wish David Kahn had heeded.
Nobody is saying convential wisom is always wrong...
Just that blind devotion to conventional wisdom is not something to be cherished.
And as for Curry over Flynn… Conventional wisdom, unconventional wisdom, statistical wisdom and any other forms of wisdom were advising against that selection.
What we want is an endless echoing refrain of the same three opinions.
(Apparently.)
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Wall
If we get the #1, we have to go Wall or Turner. I would go Wall and trade Rubio rights for a dynamic wing or one of those other top 4 picks. If we can move Rubio, I go Wall. Then, you have Wall/Flynn or Wall/Sessions and one goes.
Wall is not 4. I don’t care what the numbers say.
And we probably go 3rd because that’s how it always goes.
SNP
Also thought Derrick Rose wasn’t going to be any good, so I guess that explains things.
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah...
..putting him 3rd was really saying he wasn’t going to be good. Good job.
http://www.canishoopus.com/2008/6/23/555445/final-draft-board
Why do you continue to come over here?
For everyone else, I think we’ve been over this in the past. You obviously have to take into account league-wide value. If Wall can net you a lot of value at the #1 pick you nab him. They’ve sunk two lotto picks and a free agent into the point guard position in an offense that doesn’t play well to point guards. Drafting Wall would mean that in the last 2 years they have drafted, drafted and traded, or signed the following:
- Rubio
- Flynn
- Lawson
- Calathes
- Sessions
Adding Wall would be 5 picks in 2 drafts on the same position. That’s Matt Millen territory with wide receivers.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Right...
but eventually, when an actual legit stud popped up (Calvin Johnson), I think they did the right thing in principle by taking him without being afraid of the whole “ANOTHER WR TO DETROIT!!!” garbage. Yes, Adrian Peterson was available, but that pick has worked out well for them. I’d actually use that little parable as an argument for taking Wall.
That was your final draft board.
Pretty much everyone knew he’d be the #1 pick (and be awesome) the entire season. He started off much much much lower in your eyes.
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
links...
…to where i said he wasn’t going to be good please.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I don’t recall SNP being overly critical of Rose, but the 2008 draft board shows how much a crap shoot drafting is. Alexander at #5 gets GMs fired and buyers beware on probably the 2-3 best player in that draft (Westbrook) and perhaps another in the top 5-6 (Gordon).
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 26, 2010 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions
I still don't get Rose
the Bulls squeaked in to the playoffs this year after Bosh got hurt in a weak Eastern Conference. Seems to me that Chris Paul and Kevin Durant are two guys with a similar supporting cast who have done far better than Rose in leading their teams to wins in a far tougher conference. I’m not saying Rose isn’t a great player, but I think he gets overhyped. I don’t know, maybe I don’t watch enough Bulls games. Chicago has resources, they have some good young talent, and yet am I the only one who feels underwhelmed by Rose thus far? Probably, but I feel similarly about Wall. Nice player, but not transcendent.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
It's only his second year in the league
I don’t think its fair to compare him to Chris Paul just yet. And I don’t think Chicago’s supporting cast is anywhere as good as Durant’s.
I'd respond... but there is nothing to say that Tim didn't just say above
Let’s be realistic when ripping on Rose, at least. Please.
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Would anyone else take Westbrook over Rose?
Maybe some of this comes from the fact that I never watch the Bulls. While I’m not positive I’d go that route, I do think Westbrook’s offense is going to improve a lot more than Rose’s defense.
Not now, I agree
But I think Westbrook is going to get scary good.
That's simply utterly untrue.
Mock drafts early that NCAA season had Rose going 4th or 5th. I well remember that, because he was (supposedly) a true PG type who could potentially play good defense at the NBA level, and I was watching to see how he’d pan out. When he came to the top of the board it frustrated me, because I wanted the Wolves to have their shot at him.
Derrick Rose wasn’t anything like the consensus #1 pick for his Freshman college season. Run of the mill fan types spent the NCAA cycle salivating over Beasley.
The revisionist history here is obvious, and it’s yours.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
After watching Rose play
a couple time during his only college year. I wanted him #1 overall. Beasley scared the crap out of me because you could tell he was off his rocker. Not that many people don’t resolve that rocker issue, but Rose could flat out dominate a game from a flow standpoint, which is what gets someone to a #1 or #2 status player. Beasley will never be that. Neither will Griffin. IMO.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Apr 26, 2010 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Why do I get the feeling that in 2 or 3 years
The same thing is going to be said when comparing Cousins to Turner. I just can’t believe anyone would take Cousins over Turner, unless you think Turner will be a bust.
Fine, but the statement I'm responding to asserts that Rose was
the consensus #1 overall pick all that Freshman year. That’s just not true, period.
I spent all that year thinking he’d be a great choice for the Wolves, and I know very well that he started out regarded as something like the 4th best player on the list. Mayo was above him at the start of the season.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I think this is an example where tourney play needs to be factored in.
If tourney play isn’t considered, then how do we judge a players ability to perform under pressure. I agree with you about Mayo, I think he was considered #1 until sometime around January of that season.
Rose vs. Beasley is also testament
to the need for some subjectivity when projecting how a player will do in the NBA.
I was 100% for Rose being the #1 pick all year and argued as such on numerous message boards because I thought his size/athleticism and ability to get the rim set him apart from any other prospect in that draft in terms of his NBA potential. I thought Beasley was a 6’9 tweener headcase who was destined to become SAR 2.0, but statistically he was dominating to the level that most people couldn’t see past the numbers as I encountered quite a bit of resistance to my viewpoint.
This is also exactly why I would never in a million years take Cousins over Wall (or even Turner).
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I know there are exceptions like Chuck Barkley
but the NBA landscape seems to be littered with undersized PFs that someone thought could overcome the lack of height.
I always get nervous about tweeners, I’d rather have someone with an obvious position, which is why I don’t even consider Turner as an NBA PG, he’ll be a shooting guard. Tweeners can be great backups, but as high draft choices expected to start they can be scary.
Actually,
And he was #1 the entire season
There was a debate regarding who the Bulls should pick, and part of the reason people thought they took Rose was due to his Chicago roots. Beasley was the top scorer and rebounder in the college game and much more dominant than Rose was with a worse supporting cast.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Apr 26, 2010 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions
NCAA Tourney
If I remember correctly, Memphis’ tournament showing really helped catapult Rose into the conversation for #1. I’m guessing that pre-draft workouts and interviews helped as well.
It's also a safe guess
that Rose didn’t mention faking his college entry tests in order to get a scholarship during any of those interviews.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
This is what is wrong with the system
Rose is put in an impossible position. Fake the test and risk being ridiculed, or fail the test and get stuck playing JUCO against basically upper level high school competition.
Well, or he could've gone the Brandon Jennings route.
Jennings didn’t qualify to go to Arizona State, so he took the year’s trip to Roma. (Actually if memory serves he bombed the exam once, then ‘took’ it a second time and got red-flagged for his improved score, after which he decided to drop the pretense.)
Between Calipari and Rose, we all probably know which person deserves more opprobrium. Kentucky knew what it was signing up for. In a year, or two, or three, when it turns out Wall’s eligibility questions got solved in the same basic way, who’s going to be shocked? Nobody.
When will a serious prospect decide to play a year in the D-league? I wonder what contract an elite H.S. player, a big name like Mayo or Wall, could get there.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Apr 26, 2010 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
opprobrium
not often I run into a word I have no idea what it means, have to rec the post just because of that
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
When will the NCAA get serious about going after guys like
Calipari. It’s amazing that Kentucky has Calipari doing his thing now, they had a major scandal right before Pitino got there, but they have basically gone unscathed, while Clem Haskins gets guys some help on term papers and the program gets set back a decade.
This could be solved if the major players wanted to fix the problem. The NBA could turn the D-league into a pre-draft developmental league for 50-60 guys a year, who would enter the draft after a year or two of proving what they can do over a 50 game schedule. The NCAA could allow an extra year of eligibility for guys who graduate as redshirt seniors, who would then spend their last season of eligibility in grad school. Think about what program building coaches could do if they could recruit “REAL” college students, red shirt them for a year, then get five years of eligibility!
the same time they get serious...
…about having “student athletes” instead of athlete students.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Apr 26, 2010 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
HS to the D League
He wasn’t a huge prospect but there was a player that went from HS to the D League this year. I’m too lazy to look up his name but by all accounts he wasn’t horrible.
I don't know why people keep having to ask College Wolf
why he is here when he has valid complaints about things. CW didn’t go off on any rants or call anyone names here. Why not just address his complaints instead of trying to belittle him?
because...
..people tend not to frequent places they don’t like.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Oh wow...
I guess I’m not crazy! I’m here because I love the Wolves. Doesn’t mean I agree with everything everyone says, like some people.
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
yes..
….but your approach is like going to a restaurant where you don’t like and bitching about the food.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
by Stop-n-Pop on Apr 26, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
What am I supposed to say?
Nice work! You have the best player in the NCAA fourth! Hell, even the near-consensus #1 for the Wolves (Turner) is ranked second.
I am supposed to agree with this?
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
why do you even read the site?
you don’t like the tone of everyone here, you think everyone gangs up on you, you don’t like the opinions…why bother? it just seems like a waste of time.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Nice Work
Nice work s-n-p. Ten out of ten sites will list Wall first because everyone else does. You have an objective criteria and you used it to produce this mock. It’s going to work out for some players and it’s not going to for others. Keep it up. I’ll take a poll if I want to know who the most likely first pick is.
by Mac of the MIAC on Apr 26, 2010 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Let's see...
You could provide reasons for your opinion.
You could reduce the level of aggression in your posts.
You could respect other people’s opinions even when they differ from your own.
For the record, I wouldn’t rank Wall 4th, either. But I also don’t think he’d be a consensus #1 overall if not for the pre-season hype. He didn’t quite have the year everyone thought he’d have.
by Madison Dan on Apr 26, 2010 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 8 recs
Indeed
College wolf has some good points, however, I really doubt that college wolf really went to college…his communication skills are only slightly better than my 15 month old daughter…temper tantrums excluded :)
Didn't have quite the year?
People here seem to love stats, and Wall had better stats than Rose according to the above. I think Rose turned out just fine in the NBA.
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
He had a mid-year slump
during which he had a really bad assists to turnover ratio. I’m not saying he had a bad year, or that he won’t be a good pro, but I don’t think he dominated like he was expected to.
by Madison Dan on Apr 26, 2010 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
For example
in the month of February, Wall shot 39% from the field and had an assist to turnover ratio of 1.2. That’s not a fluke game or anything. That’s eight games fairly late in the year. So yeah, I don’t think people expected that Wall would play like that for an entire month. I’d still take him, but it’s not crazy to propose looking at other prospects.
Fair enough
But no matter how you look at it for the Wolves, Turner/Wall should be 1a/1b
by College Wolf on Apr 26, 2010 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree
but I’m less depressed about the thought of getting the 3rd or 4th pick than I was a couple of months ago. Fifth would suck.
Isn’t exactly that in the post?
The question is raised if you’d take Rose Nr1 in this years draft.
And yes, we do love stats ;)
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
by Wim (Belgium) on Apr 26, 2010 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Actually...
I’d say it’s like someone running a restaurant going to a competing restaurant and complaining loudly about how bad the food is.
It’s desperate and not a little bit classless.
Check out Humdinger TV on YouTube.
http://twitter.com/HumdingerTV
Yes, but
I agree with you SNP, but you should also be saying the same things about biggity2bit. He bullies every poster, is very negative and critical with an unwarranted air of superiority.
Wow, and I just saw him conversing with Eric in Madison quite civilly
on the previous thread, where he made some good points.
It takes a fair amount to make me consciously notice who a poster is before responding to them. Biggity’s list of recent posts is full of stuff like being willing to take a controversial stance (against Rose for example), and it doesn’t strike me as particularly insulting in the process.
“Every poster”? I’m not feeling bullied.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
That’s because you haven’t run into him in the skyway yet. He took my lunch money AND pants me for good measure!
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Same thing happened to me.
Although for some reason he gave my lunch money back to me, but he kept my pants.
The only thing I usually notice about Biggity
is that his posts are filled with too much analysis. I’d pick reading one of those 10 times out of 10 over a post by College Wolf. I have seen Biggity be a little facetious in a few posts, but nothing that ever came off as ill-willed. Maybe I missed him going after you, but I don’t think that’s a fair assessment overall.
I also think Biggity
gave the best theory behind why Rambis treated certain players the way he did in terms of playing time.
by Rascal Flatts on Apr 28, 2010 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't like the "too many PGs" argument
Sure, if we take Wall, we need to trade Rubio, Flynn or both. But it’s not like the Rubio pick is wasted in that scenario. He still gets us something in return.
We’d face a similar predicament if we took Cousins or Favors, in that we’d have to trade Love or Jefferson (which we may have to do anyway).
Turner is clearly the easiest player to fit in with what we have and the system Rambis is trying to implement. I’m not sure that’s a good thing, though. (I’d still be thrilled to get Turner.) In that sense, getting Wall could be really cool. It’d be much easier to rationalize just blowing the whole team up and building around him.
by Madison Dan on Apr 26, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
This is a philosophical point...
…with me more than anything else. I don’t think teams should build around point guards. Wing talent uber alles. Dominant big men are next in line. I think Turner will be a very nice wing in the NBA but not an A1 guy. He fits very well and I’m hoping the Wolves land him more than any other player because he doesn’t have the perceived baggage as someone like Cousins and I’m really hoping that the Rubio/Flynn (or Sessions) duo can hold down the point for the future.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I think big men go before wings
In the last 20 years, only Jordan has really found success without a dominant big man on his team
I'll give you Jordan
but Kobe had to have Shaq/Gasol to win, LeBron and Durant haven’t won anything yet, Wade had to have Shaq to win…
Need both definitely
Wings to score at the end of games, and athletic bigs to defend the paint at the end of games…
2 most important team assets, wolves have neither
Tim Duncan
had to have Manu, and KG had to have Ray and Paul. Chicken or egg, my friend, chicken or egg.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
And David Robinson and Tim Duncan needed
Mario Ellie…
BetterLaettner
by BetterLaettnerThanRider on Apr 26, 2010 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions
It's pretty close
You definitely need very good big men to win. But you also need Kobes, Manus, and Wades. Guys who can create their own shot down the stretch.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Who would we build a team around...
Parker…
or Duncan…
Seems like a legit question to settle this.
Me? I think the Spurs need both.
Wing talent über alles?
David Kahn’s performance last offseason must’ve chafed your shorts somethin’ awful.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
this franchise..
…has never done a good job getting good wing talent. it must be in the water.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Hey, Tony Campbell was our go-to guy.
Plus, Tyrone Corbin! (Who would have started on this year’s Wolves. No, not the historical 89-90 Corbin. Today’s version. At 50, or whatever he is now.)
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
One wonders why they didn't dress Reggie Theus
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree that it the Wolves have been PG crazy, but
I still think this team needs to take the best players available. If that is Wall – take him and figure out what to move later. Obviously you would like to avoid drafting 4 PGs again and should be able to find a wing or big with the later first round picks. Out of Favors, Wall, Cousins, and Turner who do you think has the best chance to be a superstar? Seeing them all a bit this year to me it is Wall without a doubt. I don’t see it in Turner – he will be a very good player but not to that level. I think Favors and Cousins are more of a roll of the dice – they could make superstar status, but they also could be a bust.
by Breaking Ankles on Apr 26, 2010 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions
Try this take on your too many PG sentiment
Let’s say the Wolves get the #1 pick and cannot trade down to #2. If they take Wall what do they have, probably a very good PG, then whatever they can get trading Rubio, which frankly is probably less than he is worth, and maybe ends up being a low end starting SG or SF. If they take Turner, they have what should be at worst an average SG, and still have the rights to a PG who should be top 10 in the NBA in a few years. I just don’t see how taking Wall and trading Rubio is going to work out better than taking Turner and keeping Flynn.
FWIW, if we were talking Flynn vs. Wall, it’s Wall in a heart beat, even if Flynn has a chance to be an average PG.
I'd probably take Wall
for the upside. But I’m just hoping we get one of the two. I could find a way to be excited about Cousins or Favors, but I’d rather not have to.
by Madison Dan on Apr 28, 2010 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions
And if GMs agree with your numbers
We’d be fine and take Wall.
But, they won’t either. It’s a Wall/Turner draft in Tier 1+.
by ChicagoViking on Apr 26, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions
If we get the #2 pick we have to take Turner
Taking Cousins would be a mistake..in my opinion
Couple things
Singler and I think Taylor are not declaring for this draft.
Be interested to see whether Daniel Orton rates with his limited playing time.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 12:20 PM CDT reply actions
if the whole target for the wolves
is that they need a guy who can stop a slide and keep the team in the game, who fits that bill? The only one that pops to me is Turner.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Apr 26, 2010 12:20 PM CDT reply actions
Wall
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm happy with Turner or Wall
Because we need to stop the slide and we need a top PG.
by ChicagoViking on Apr 26, 2010 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Another guy I'd be interesed in seeing the Hoopus score for
is Landry Fields, SF from Stanford. He’s blogging for DX, and seems like a reasonably bright fellow.
I think intelligence is a key factor in NBA success that we don’t pay enough attention too, along with opportunity like Abbott(?) wrote about a few weeks ago on Truehoop.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 12:23 PM CDT reply actions
This makes me feel really good about Evan Turner.
Of the three college superstars in the draft (Turner, Wall, Cousins), You’ve got Wall’s remarkable talent level but lack of statistical dominance, you’ve got Cousins’ statistical dominance but Beasley-esque red flags… And then you’ve got Turner, who takes the best from both guys.
I definitely disagree with the order of your top 4. I’d go Wall/Turner at the top 2, in some order, and then Cousins not far behind in 3rd and Favors a distant 4th.
Turner, who "takes the best from both guys"
but who’s older. Both Wall and Cousins were freshmen. Evan Turner: junior. He’s more mature for a reason, maybe.
It’s going to be interesting to see how interviews and workouts and whatnot go with Cousins. His agent needs to put some English on the dang ball, and I wonder how that’ll happen.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
While I still prefer Wall or Turner
It’s re-assuring to see that getting 3rd or 4th might not be that bad. As College Wolf stated above, 5th pick could very well mean the end of the world.
How would people rate these 5 in terms of value: Cousins, Favors, Jefferson, Love, Milicic?
I go…
1. Love
2. Cousins
3. Favors
4. Jefferson
5. Milicic
i'd flip...
…love and cousins. cousins had a dominant year. here’s hoping they scout the crap out of his personality/off-court issues.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Larry Johnson is *your* Grandmama?
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
If Cousins is 6'10"-6'11" with around a 7'6" wingspan, he's basically...
…..Dwight Howard, in terms of stature. Not as athletic, obviously, but he just has a physical advantage that Love and Jefferson don’t.
7’6 wingspan? No way he’s that long. Howard was like 7’4" IIRC, and 7’6 would put Cousins in Thabeet territory as one of the biggest wingspans in the DX database, or at least I’m reasonably sure it would. I know 7’6 would be absolutely mammoth.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Howard was 6'9" with a 7'4.5" wingspan
6’10" with a 7’6" wingspan is about Eddy Curry/DeSagana Diop size. Brendan Haywood was 6’11.75" with a 7’6" wingspan. 7’6" wingspan is huge, but it’s not so rare that it’s never seen. I’d like to see Cousins come in a bit thinner than Curry/Diop/Haywood – they all were beyond three bills.
Oh, it happens, but it’s still pretty rare. Oddly, most of the guys under 6’11 with 7’6+ wingspans in DX’s database turned out to be total nobodies. Elton Brand is really the only one who went on to do anything whatsoever. If Cousins is anywhere near a 7’6 wingspan I’d be really impressed and it would bump him up in my eyes a bit.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
1. Favors
2. Cousins
3. Love
4. Jefferson
5. Milicic
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Defense, attitude are the two major things
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
The argument would also include "running game," wouldn't it?
If we’re talking about style of play, athleticism to complement Jefferson or Love, and that sort of stuff, Favors looks the part. His productivity (under somewhat adverse circumstances) at Georgia Tech, on the other hand….
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
It's not like Favors wasn't productive.
I might be extra impressed by the fact that he produced at a high level with no help at all from his guards and a talented upperclassmen playing lots of minutes who duplicated his position.
Check out his draftexpress profile entry from February
They have little in the ways (sic) of perimeter shooting, suffer from very poor spacing on the perimeter, and have given their opponents few reasons not to pack it in defensively and just try and control the paint.
With no playmakers on the roster to create easy looks for him or even consistently make a fundamentally sound post-entry pass, and clearly playing redundantly alongside a big man with almost the same exact strengths and weaknesses as him in Gani Lawal, Favors’ weaknesses could not possibly be magnified or exposed any worse than they already have.
Welcome home, Derrick Favors! You fit right into the Minnesota Timberwolves roster.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
What’s the (sic) that sometimes in between sentences?
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
by Wim (Belgium) on Apr 27, 2010 1:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Hey, I didn't know that was a long "i" in Latin!
Nice. You learn something all the time. Next time: square brackets when it’s inside the text.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I think they usually used the square brackets
to clarify the meaning of a pronoun that a person being quoted used. I think I’ve also seen it used to replace obscenities with what the obscenities were meant to mean.
So, if you’re quoting Kevin Garnett, who might have said, “That little shit gets all the damn calls”, you might change it to, “[Kevin Durant] gets all the damn calls.”
by oblivionspocket on Apr 27, 2010 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
thx; should have used google on that :)
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
by Wim (Belgium) on Apr 27, 2010 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Also, I think the biggest concern with Cousins is....
….will he stay on the court?
Rambis isn’t a forgiving coach when it comes to behavior and effort issues. We’ve seen that with Love. There’s really no chance Cousins will be a model citizen no matter where he goes, at least for a few years, and if Rambis will bench Love for a quarter for poor effort, how long do you think he’d bench Cousins for yelling at him during a game?
I just can't help thinking that Cousins is going to be another
Rasheed Wallace. Great player, but is he worth it when someone like Turner is on the board.
More reasons to be skeptical of Wall #1
Look at comparisons of the 3 Callipari PGs
Wall: WS: 7.2 PER: 22.2
Rose: WS: 8.5 PER: 24.1
Evans: WS: 8 PER: 25.7
Wall grades out significantly lower in every efficiency metric. These are guys playing the same position in the same system, and in the case of Rose with nearly a clonal play-style on an equally dominant team. Why should we expect Wall to be any better than these guys?
College production is far from perfectly predictive of pro success, but if Wall is nothing more than a poor-man’s Rose, no thank you at #1.
Yes but...
…is a poor man’s Rose > Rubio?
Rubio plays for FC Barcelona
When Rubio comes over, sure he might be better than a poor man’s Rose. Not sure. But I don’t take that into account for next season.
by TimAllen on Apr 26, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I hope we care about more than just next season.
For the record, I love Wall and think he should be our #1 pick but to play Devil’s advocate, if the FO projects Wall to be a poor man’s DRose than we should be happy with Rubio and take Turner.
yes, let's remember that
this is a long term build, according to the guy in charge. Based on that, I would take Turner over Wall, but have no problem taking Cousins. Our team is not so talented that we can pick for need only. Still looking for that #1 stud, take BPA!
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Apr 26, 2010 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Are we even sure Wall is better than Rubio right now??
It seems to me the Wall love started when he played great in November and December, and Rubio wasn’t doing much. Since about January, it seems Wall’s played kind of plateaued, while most accounts say Rubio got better as the season went along.
Unless Kahn has inside knowledge that Rubio won’t play for the Wolves, this seems to be a no brainer…keep Rubio and either trade Wall or just take Turner if given the option.
At the same time though, how much need is there to really invest in Wall...
….when Rubio is set to come over? If you have the choice, Evan Turner is just as talented, fills a lot more needs and doesn’t conflict with our existing roster.
Well, I'd rather have Turner, actually
I’m just saying that a poor man’s Rose isn’t exactly that bad, compared to what we already have
Is he really set?
I think this time next season we are going to be chewing our fingernails over Rubio playing “will I/won’t I”
"I was trying to focus on breathing," Milicic said. "I was just focusing on breathing so I didn’t die."
No debate here..
In fact I would describe Flynn as a poor man’s Rose… Which hints at why I don’t really like Rose that much.
The difference is
that teams geared their zone defenses specifically to stop Wall’s penetration from the very first game of the season. He played with arguably as much talent as Rose did but they were mostly freshman and Wall was thought of as the biggest threat all season long. Rose played with a Junior (CDR) and 2 seniors (Anderson, Dozier) who were proven scorers before Rose ever stepped on the court. Through the first half of that season teams weren’t focusing on Rose like they focuses on Wall last year. Wall is a guy who will be a better NBA player than NCAA player because the NBA suits his elite speed and athleticism much better. He’ll live in the paint in the league.
Not to mention the bigs on UK stole away PERs thunder for a guard compared to the other two. I think there’s nothing to worry about with those stats, and those worrying are likely reading far too much into them.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Cousins was a lumbering assist factory for any point guard..
He was always sitting under the basket and has exceptional hands. Also, note that Wall’s WS is where he really falls off from the other two. WS is definitely not a volume stat. It is hard for me to think of a way that having Cousins on that team did anything but improve Wall’s WS.
Also on Cousins. I’m not buying that defenses were uniquely stacked against Wall. Cousins demanded absurd attention, and was paid it. To the extent that the D stacked against Wall it was as much taking advantage of his one-dimensionality as it was concern over his ability to dominate the game. Teams begged Wall to shoot all season, and it worked.
BTW, I agree that Wall will probably more productive as a pro, for all the reasons that those same arguments were correctly made for Rose and Evans. My concern is him being any better than they are (or even at their level).
The nature of the UK dribble drive offense made the traditional “drop it in the post to Cousins” opportunities not as plentiful as one would think, as well as the amount of offensive rebounds and defensive rebounds collected by the UK bigs lowered Wall’s rebound value.
Defenses were not stacked against Wall, but it took away Wall’s strengths when Cousins kept 2 guys in the post quite often.
Nothing wrong with having concern, I’m just stating my view that I think potential worries some have may be a bit overblown and that the WS and PER differences have a story behind them.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
Good arguments
I’m still skeptical, but I’ll pocket those to excuse myself when I end up being wrong about him.
Interesting way of looking at it.
I think that Kentucky had more talent than the 2007 Memphis team, but they were younger. That may be throwing off his numbers in comparison to Rose. Thoughts?
by Breaking Ankles on Apr 26, 2010 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll probably get slammed for this statement, but another thing to consider is that the level
of talent in the NCAA this season seemed below normal. If this was the case, then Wall put up his stats against less competition than the others.
The idea of excluding the NCAA tournament
makes a lot of sense to me. It takes any emotion out of the pick. To me emotion played a big role in selecting Foye and Flynn as well as many other players that turned out to be overrated.
Emotion is a part of the game at the NBA level, too
Why would you take it out of your considerations? Don’t you want players who can handle themselves well in the spotlight and in big game situations?
You're talking about playing...
…not evaluating. I’m talking about taking it out of the eval process because it’s uneven, ridden with single-game errors, and a small sample size. It’s not something you can use as evenly as possible with all prospects.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Well, there's no stat to account for it and its not easy to quantify
which can make evaluating it somewhat tricky, especially for people who are stats-oriented people, but I’d like to know whether a guy I’m drafting has the stones to step his game up in tough situations
Which is why..
…you scout him for as much as possible during the regular season and before.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
That's fine..
….but you’re going to be left with a single-elimination tourney where anything can happen and where not everyone gets to play.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Which is why you consider it as one factor among many
instead of considering it to mean everything like some folks, or considering it to mean nothing.
I think that the reason players rise too much based on the tourney
is that some scouts or GM’s overvalue tourney play. At the same time, totally excluding tourney play from consideration is just as big a mistake. The best approach would be to factor in the entire season together, without over/under weighting any particular games.
There is a stat (sort of)
it’s called regression to the mean. The greatest predictor of future behavior or results is prior behavior or results. A guy will have good games and bad games, but over time some people are better at knowing when to shoot and when not to shoot, etc etc. That’s why James Anderson is considered such a good value pick (maybe not at 5th, but certainly at the Charlotte pick). Dude produced, efficiently, for a very long time. Xavier Henry? Maybe, maybe not. If I had to make a choice as to who I’d want taking the shot between those two guys with the game on the line I can tell you easily who I’d want – Anderson. No doubt.
I know you’d rather not believe it, but a reproduceable ‘fact’ of basketball is that players typically produce at a certain rate in varying circumstances and they don’t often vary from that. Sure, within the realm of 1-2 shots there will be variation, and even over 1,2,3 games there will be variation, but on the whole they will always trend towards their mean, their typical conversion rate. Stewie put up 23 or whatever on KG and the Celtics. Does that mean anything? Not really – dude regressed towards his mean over time. I’d rather know and understand what the reasonable expectations are for a guy in a given situation and be able to put him in the best possible situation to make that shot. That’s data, it’s as known a ‘known’ as you’re going to get. You can check a guy to see if he’s a lithophile or whatever, but ultimately it comes down to percentages, to coin flips. You can eyeball which coin is weighted in your favor, or you can study how they actually land over time and select the one that lands ‘heads’ more often than not.
"Thankfully, they are not straw-colored brain bats."
Regression to the mean
Understood. But it’s also nice to know what the high end of a player’s potential is.
I wonder if D Wade would have been a top 5 pick
if not for his tourney performance. To me this is the perfect example of why the tourney matters, Wade proved to be a big game player, and has been ever since. I admit there are examples the other way as well, but I can’t buy not giving a player credit when he almost single handedly leads his team to the Final Fours or beyond. Magic Johnson or Larry Bird anyone??
Corey Brewer: Final Four Most Outstanding Player
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Just my opinion
but I actually thought Noah was the better player in entire tourney between him and Brewer.
Noah and Horford
I remember Rick Majerus on KFAN a couple of weeks before that draft, saying Noah looked to him like a Rodman-esque energy rebounder who knew how to use his unorthodox offensive game and was therefore able to play a role there, and who had legitimate size. As much as I usually argue that project bigs are overvalued, Noah was good value at 9.
Brewer two picks before that…. In terms of draft value, when was the last time you saw “defensive wing with serious questions about handle and shot” taken mid-lottery? It wasn’t a great draft class, but even in that context it was something of a tourney reach. The “McHale’s laziness in scouting” argument got stronger that year.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I remember the Majerus interview as well
I was really hoping the Wolves would consider Noah, but I understood at the time why there was concern about him. Noah just seemed like a gamer at the time, turns out that was true. CHer’s keep bringing up the Roy/Foye and Granger/McCants drafts, but McHale could have salvaged things if he had grabbed Noah and then Mayo (followed by a trade of Foye when he still had value).
Don’t know if you’re old enough, but I liked Noah because I watched his dad play tennis. He had a flair and seemed to be a gamer, which passed along to his son. If you haven’t seen them, look for Janick(?) hitting “good” tennis shots backwards, between his legs. You can’t teach instinct!
I mostly liked Noah because his stock dropped for no good reason
He was rumored to be a top 3 pick in the previous year’s draft if he’d come out. It was pretty obvious that the pecking order on that team was Horford and Noah at the top, Brewer a notch below, and Green and Humphrey a notch below that. With that said, though, it seemed like Brewer was still a solid pick at the time; the question marks were really Green and Yi in that draft.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Apr 26, 2010 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions
The "no good" reasons had something to do with "traditional scouting"
Wasn’t he simply one of those cases where the longer people looked at his game, the more objections they had to the way it looked? If there’s ever been a player whose shot gets looked at funny, it’s Noah.
The previous year as of draft time, Noah was ranked #1 on the draftexpress board. He fell while winning another championship and producing slightly less. It’s easy to think they just had too much time to look at the guy. Or maybe he was a year older, and that was the difference between 3rd and 10th. Suddenly he turned into Ed O’Bannon.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Disagree 100%
For the teams that make the tournament it is part of the season so dont throw it out. Its also nice to see how a player performs when the season is on the line. I would also argue the opposite, after watching Roy in the tourny i thought he was the player we should absolutely draft and i was less impressed with Flynn after the tourny. Basically i look at the tourny as a way to add a + or – to the the players grade.
Quincy Pondexter?
Maybe I’m falling prey to the tourney – but how does Quincy grade out? I like him at the end of the 1st round or if he drops to our 2nd round picks. I thought he’d be a good pick when Utah was the 2 seed in the West… now I think there will be a great value to be had at 23 (Anderson? Henry? Whiteside? Aminu? – I think one will be there).
Quincy Pondexter
He’s got my favorite name of anybody in the draft.
by princelyfrank on Apr 26, 2010 5:57 PM CDT up reply actions
"Ishmael Smith"
Okay, he’s a 5’11" point guard. But put him on this roster, and you have all sorts of “white whale” jokes to make.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
In addition to excluding the NCAA tournament
you could also exclude visits. For example, have no player visits. It may seem impersonal, but it would remove executive bias as well.
I agree there is huge risk in the individual workout
being given undue importance. But because I think intelligence is a vital key to success, it seems important that teams meet these guys and try to determine their thinking capabilities.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions
If I remember hearing Flip Saunders correctly,
this was where the Wolves realized KG was the guy to pick.
No, you scout them in college
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Impressed by Cousins or his stats?
For all: I get that Cousins had an amazing year statistically. But when I watched him play, he didn’t strike me as a player who was going to dominate on the next level. As SnP points out, he has the size, but does he have the athleticism to replicate that production in the pros? I don’t recall ever having a “wow” moment watching him play.
I freely admit that the Wolves would be doomed if they had me as lead scout, so I’d like to hear what other people think.
I honestly got the same impression
Although his attitude was and is my biggest concern. Very Rasheed Wallace-like by my eye.
But I agree….seeing him on the court, he never looked as impressive as he did in the box score
He impressed the hell out of me
He’s incredibly advanced for a young big man.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Ditto..
…his strength and footwork are out of this world for a teenager.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Plus..
…his hands are insane.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Good to know
So who is a good comparable for Cousins in the league now? The first player that came to mind for me is Bogut (this year, when healthy). That is, a talented guy who isn’t going to jump out of the gym. Is that aiming too low, too high, or at a completely different target?
Much more of a physical presence than Bogut
I think. Hard to exactly figure out who he is. A bigger Elton Brand? A latter day Moses Malone? (OK, that’s going too far).
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions
A better version of David Lee
Only bigger…and not Caucasian.
by Blakeley on Apr 26, 2010 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
No
Lee is more of a perimeter stretch big than Cousins is ever going to be.
Al Jefferson with more ups and a mean streak?
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I deliberately avoided that comparison
One way to reduce optimism about Cousins: read DX’s Best and Worst Case comparisons. That’d be “Taller Al Jefferson” and “Derrick Coleman/Eric Dampier”, respectively.
I think it's more like:
“Al Jefferson if he became all the things Canis Hoopus wanted him to be: Quick/light on his feet, and considerably bigger.”
I’m not sure that’s true. I’m not the world’s David Lee expert, but every time I can remember watching him play he did approximately 99% of his damage within 5 feet of the rim, mostly off pick and roll finishes and offensive rebounds. He’s ambidextrous, is an incredibly efficient finisher with the ability to finish in a variety of ways, has great ahnds and he rebounds the hell out of the ball.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
According to hoopdata
you are pretty much spot on, although he did average two makes from 16-23 feet per game at a 43% clip. That’s pretty good and better than our own Kevin Love.
Josh Childress is the wing version of David Lee in terms of figuring out ways to efficiently score inside the paint without the benefit of jaw-dropping athleticism or elite size/strength.
by Rascal Flatts on Apr 28, 2010 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, so it seems like he’s actually not a bad comp for Cousins. Big dude with good hands who rebounds well and is a really good finisher near the hoop. Not sure if Cousins is a better creater, but Lee will bust a nice little hook shot from in close with either hand from time to time.
If DMC is a 6’11 David Lee who is a better shot creator he’d be a hell of a player. Of course, a huge part of what makes Lee so good is his non-stop, always in 5th gear motor.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
What about...
Andrew Bynum?
Physically dominating.
Maybe not the brightest bulb.
Still raw.
Check out Humdinger TV on YouTube.
http://twitter.com/HumdingerTV
Andruw Bynum
I think his game is very similar to Bynum’s when Bynum is healthy.
Based on the eye ball test, Bynum looks taller and longer…but it’s not a bad comp
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 26, 2010 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, that's the thing about him
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to have the Wolves take him at 3-4.
But isn’t the typical progression of a young big man’s talents:
1. Height
2. Athleticism
3. Basketball skills
And if that’s the case, Cousins could be the reverse—where a typical player learns how to use his phenomenal physical gifts on the basketball court, but Cousins isn’t going to become more athletic in his mid to late 20s?
(If this question makes sense to you, please rephrase it to me so that even I understand it).
Terrific hands
great footwork for a kid that age, aggressive to the basket, excellent rebounder. He isn’t as explosive as Dwight Howard, but he isn’t unathletic either.
He wasn’t just a garbage guy, he has a lot of skills. I’d take him 3rd without question, and without the attitude stuff, I’d imagine he’s be close to a consensus number one guy.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Cousins doesn't have athleticsm in the Favors, Wall sense, but he has something that I think is often underrated...
He has that coordination sense. Soft hands and body-control being the easiest markers. he just strikes me as the kind of guy that walks into a bar and has never played darts but just gets it immediately and whoops everybody… Or the kind of athlete that decides he wants to play golf after he retires and is way better than he should be right off the bat. This is something that I think is really important for success in sports but often overlooked for the speed, jump, cone drill type athleticism that draws our attention.
Hollins would be the extreme case of having the later, but not the former. Wall would be an example of a guy that clearly has both.
Lots of posts popping up, it's insane
I’m ignoring the bickering which took place early on, so forgive me if these have already been stated:
I like the uniqueness. Would I put Cousins #1? No, but I can see an argument for it. Would I put Wall 4th? No, but he’s not a sure thing and Cousins/Favors have quite a bit of potential themselves, while Turner is more NBA ready.
Anderson has his flaws, and likely isn’t worthy of being at the top of your 2nd tier. The main reason I say this is because he can’t be an alpha-dog in the NBA. His handle isn’t there and he’s has 3 years to improve it. However, his scoring efficiency and ability to get it off quickly makes him a legit mid/late-lotto guy if you take and personal preference opinions out of it. Anderson is a good reason why the NCAA tournament shouldn’t ever be a heavy factor, but just treated as maybe 1.5 games worth of info (I’m thinking of doing that for my quality opponent stats next year actually, 1.5 or 2x value for those).
Williams ranking 10th may be trouble, but I didn’t watch him enough to have a concrete opinion on him. I do think taking him in the lottery would be a mistake, however… maybe even in the CHA pick range. He needs to work on that jumper since he’s almost purely a scorer – right now his awesome FTA rate is what’s keeping him afloat in the efficiency category.
The last thing I’ll touch on is the Udoh comment. Yes, his FG% is a worry, but he was asked to do a lot for Baylor on both ends of the court. He may have actually been asked to do the 2nd most out of all the prospects outside of Turner. Because of that I would cut him some slack and realize that he’s not going to be a scorer at the NBA level (probably 12ppg tops if he reaches his potential) and his versatility would be a huge plus.
Honestly, if the Timberwolves do go Cousins (which I wouldn’t be upset with at #3 or #4 – maybe not even #2 if Kahn had a vision), I think Udoh would be a near-perfect complement to him.
Outside of all of that, I like the in-depth write-ups on the rankings – even if they may be a bit too reliant on the Hoopus Score. I’d list the things I agree with, but it’d make this post too long.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
by Casperkid23 on Apr 26, 2010 1:35 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Perhaps a front-court trio of..
Cousins, Love, and Udoh would be a nice foundation to build everything around for the future? Move Jefferson and Flynn for a wing athlete and sign another and then bring Rubio over?
If we kept
Love I could live with that trio for sure. And it probably would be a very easy scenario to fulfill. We wouldn’t have to move up or down with any of our picks. But yes, you would HAVE to move Al in that scenario, hopefully like you say, to get a wing/shooter. I still think Love is the super sub off the bench if we had all 3 of those players.
Your 2010 Wolves Starters: Wall, J. Anderson, Granger, Al, Whiteside
I like that A LOT if we can do something like some permutation of the Al to Detroit scenarios that have been floated around. Prince is an excellent 3pt shooter who would really complement those guys, and we could use the Detroit pick to land another 2/3 athlete/shooter (pray Wes Johnson falls maybe?).
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
is Udoh
althetic enough to play the K. Martin to Kidd forRubio?
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Apr 26, 2010 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Great Post
When will you be making another draft board?
I keep mine regularly updated as people declare or withdraw, as well as when stories and reports on a players background come out, but next one I’ll post will be sometime after measurements. Just did a quick update on my blog regarding what I think the odds are of a prospect reaching a certain level at his peak, but I did it fairly hastily and will be refining it further when I have more time.
Seems like people were salivating for a draft post, however, as this got a huge amount of hits an hour.
Kudos again to SNP for putting time into it.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin' . . .
. . . but here is the list of NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Players since 1990:
1990 – Anderson Hunt, UNLV
1991 – Christian Laettner, Duke
1992 – Bobby Hurley, Duke
1993 – Donald Williams, North Carolina
1994 – Corliss Williamson, Arkansas
1995 – Ed O’Bannon, UCLA
1996 – Tony Delk, Kentucky
1997 – Miles Simon, Arizona
1998 – Jeff Sheppard, Kentucky
1999 – Richard Hamilton, UConn
2000 – Mateen Cleaves, Michigan State
2001 – Shane Battier, Duke
2002 – Juan Dixon, Maryland
2003 – Carmelo Anthony, Syracuse
2004 – Emeka Okafor, UConn
2005 – Sean May, North Carolina
2006 – Joakim Noah, Florida
2007 – Corey Brewer, Florida
2008 – Mario Chalmers, Kansas
2009 – Wayne Ellington, North Carolina
2010 – Kyle Singler, Duke
And the Naismith award for College Basketball’s Most Outstanding Player:
2010 Evan Turner Indiana
2009 Blake Griffin • Oklahoma
2008 Tyler Hansbrough • North Carolina
2007 Kevin Durant • Texas
2006 J.J. Redick • Duke
2005 Andrew Bogut • Utah
2004 Jameer Nelson • Saint Joseph’s
2003 T.J. Ford • Texas
2002 Jason Williams • Duke
2001 Shane Battier • Duke
2000 Kenyon Martin • Cincinnati
1999 Elton Brand • Duke
1998 Antawn Jamison • North Carolina
1997 Tim Duncan • Wake Forest
1996 Marcus Camby • UMass
1995 Joe Smith • Maryland
1994 Glenn Robinson • Purdue
1993 Calbert Cheaney • Indiana
1992 Christian Laettner • Duke
1991 Larry Johnson • UNLV
1990 Lionel Simmons • LaSalle
Going by these two lists, it appears that on the tournament Most Outstanding Player list, there is a much larger proportion of players who later disappointed in the NBA (some of whom haven’t even played for the Wolves. Yet.).
by PoorDick on Apr 26, 2010 1:37 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I don't think anyone suggested that the tournament's outstanding player
should be the #1 overall pick.
Hah, that was a savvy purchase.
I wonder if my Jonny Flynn Wolves jersey will one day be seen in the same light
I chuckled
Anyone ever regular http://straightcashhomey.net ?
BetterLaettner
by BetterLaettnerThanRider on Apr 26, 2010 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Naismith
The Naismith award for best HS player is predicts NBA talent the best.
http://www.naismithawards.com/NaismithWinnersHighSchoolPlayers/tabid/159/Default.aspx
by Mac of the MIAC on Apr 26, 2010 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Randy Livingston is one of the most tragic stories around…I’m convinced he would have been an all world PG if not for multiple knee injuries.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 26, 2010 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions
It is amazing how many of those guys have gone on to real
pro careers.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 27, 2010 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions
As far as I'm concerened...
Let the Cousins/Favors talk begin!
I said this a while ago, but Turner’s stock will never be higher then it was at the end of the regular season. I bet he won’t even work out for teams (ala Rubio last year) because his game relies so much on it being 5v5.
The chance of Turner falling to 3 or 4 keeps getting higher and higher.
I'll also add...
That the better Favors and Cousins look, the less likely the Wolves are to package Love with the 3rd/4th in order to get Turner at 2…which is alright by me.
Nice job
The “New Comments” box alert just showed the same name twice:
Blakeley
Blakeley
I’ve never seen that before.
I thought so,
so I took the liberty of forwarding it on to him.
He’s apparently impressed, as he asked to meet with you today at 4:30. Oh, and you must be getting a promotion with a new office, as he requested that you bring along a box containing all your personal items from your desk.
His agent will (probably wisely) stop him from working out
What are the chances Evan T. rises one slot in the basic league opinion, as opposed to slipping for Cousins or whoever if he happens not to shine in a group drill against the patch of mid-round wings? If Xavier Henry looks way athletic next to him, Turner could get demerits.
There’s plenty of separation now. Best to play it cool, in terms of his draft stock. The guy doesn’t have that much to prove.
It’s a little like political candidates who are ahead not wanting to debate, if you know what I mean.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
It would be totally unWolves like
for them to get the third pick, and somehow have Turner drop to them.
it would be right in line with
getting fifth pick, and having Rubio fall to them.
If this happens, Turner will play for FC Barcelona, and the Wolves will hold his rights for eternity.
I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry
I suppose in the internet age we could have the best rights held team in the NBA and just watch from afar.
Let's review: We had good luck once.
I still cannot believe how cool it was to have Rubio fall. Standing in line for my burrito, having the guy behind me say the Wolves had taken Rubio, I asked what they’d given up to move to #2 or whatever. Nope. He was just there.
Okay, so it meant the contract thing would be a bother. Still. Rubio was a player I think almost every team’s fans followed and daydreamed about all that year. The Wolves picked up his rights without adding any assets. They got him for a year less of Randy Foye and Mike Miller.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
That's funny
It’s the opposite of the feeling I had a year earlier when I had a chance to check the internet and saw the Wolves were screwed in the lottery yet again.
I hope you're right, since we'll probably get boned in the lottery,
but I’d be surprised if he doesn’t go top 2, and completely shocked if he dropped to 4.
Greta Post
I have been looking forward to the hoopus draft board and am very excited to talk about this years draft prospects. I am in 100% agreement with your top 4 prospects. Beyond landing the #5 pick, a John Wall draft is my least favorite scenario of the four. Eventually we have to turn this roster imbalance into a team, and as great of an athlete as Jon Wall is, he is not so skilled of a basketball player vis-a-vis the other 3 top prospects where choosing him and dealing with even more roster imbalance makes sense to me. He is not LeBron James.
DeMarcus Cousins is the #1 player on my board, with Evan Turner being the best fit. I would be happy with either of these guys, because the roster imbalance created by taking Cousins would further force the issue of disposing of Al Jefferson as he is the clear redundant piece in such a scenario. This is a good thing IMO. Kahn definitely couldn’t screw up this assessment and Love would be kept. I think it’s also interesting to note that Cousins team played at relatively fast pace for College Basketball purposes and he didn’t struggle. He seemed to do well in transition and was not so stiff that I couldn’t see him playing a role in transition offense with a guy like Rubio. Favors supposedly is the better fit in such an offense and his fit with Rubio is usually the thing mentioned when comparing the two, so I was wondering if your numbers showed any particular weakness in Cousins’ potential in this aspect.
My only slight quibble is two-fold and I would love to get your opinion of Favors vs. Davis vs. Anderson. I assume that Hoopus score takes into account age, so Davis’ hoopus score is higher than Favors, and he seems to do the stuff that Favors supposedly does well, namely defense and rebounding, better than Favors. Davis has the block numbers I wish Favors has, he has an NBA pedigree a la Stephen Curry. When I look at Favors High School videos I see a guy athletically who looks like Amare or Dwight Howard, but then when I watched him this year at Georgia Tech, it looked like his body is changing from a lean athlete to more of a muscular bruiser. His block numbers suggest he was more grounded this year than advertised. This isn’t a bad thing, I just think Favors so called athleticism will be less noticeable as his body bulks up and he becomes a center moreso than a power forward.
So I guess, my question is, in your opinion, what separates Ed Davis and Derrick Favors to make Davis Tier two, but Favors tier 1? Is it something from the eye test when watching these guys, Davis’ injury, age, hype, size? Curious to get your take.
Mostly the injury..
…history and not-as-good shooting numbers for Davis vis-a-vis Favors. He’s also a better offensive rebounder. If he’s really 6’10 and with great hops and long arms…then he’s good to go. Had Davis kept an eFG over 60 in the ACC (and not gotten injured), he would have been tier one, easily.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I still think the best comp for Favors right nwo
is Al Horford with more mobility and more potential.
This may sound obsurd
But I compared his game to a young Karl Malone.
Going to give my 2¢ on the issues you brought up
Cousins fit on a fast-paced team:
UK played at a relatively fast pace, and Cousins certainly could keep up in relatively long stretches. However, he also committed more than his share of silly fouls, and while I don’t want to speculate on whether being gassed was the reason for some of them, I remember more than a few times him going to the bench and huffing.
Again, he certainly had moments in fast-break opportunities where I think it shows he’s not afraid to run and he certainly can run (and handle, too); but compared to Favors it’s not quite as good of a fit if that’s your plan. Then again, Cousins will likely measure out as more of a Center than Favors, and certainly played in that manner, so it kind of evens out.
Favors vs Davis:
I too like Favors, however his block numbers aren’t noticeably better than Favors when looking at quality opponent stats (they’re both good, not elite); and their rebounding numbers are virtually identical as is their offensive efficiency.
The places where Davis is better, I attribute to age, experience, and not facing the battery of teams Favors had to face as Davis went out midway through the ACC schedule. Also, when you look at their physical profiles, Favors is far more built and the fundamental advantages Davis showed in rebounding could very well end up being learned by Favors; thus the edge would definitely go into Favors direction as Davis doesn’t seem like he’ll ever be a “beast”. Also, as you know, block stats don’t tell the whole story defensively – so while Favors numbers may make him seem like he was “grounded” it was more that he was being an intelligent, effective defender. Favors holds the edge over Davis defensively in my opinion.
Basically, I see Favors having the edge due to potential as their production wasn’t significantly different; and even though I like Davis as the 6th best prospect, he’s in a different tier in my eyes.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
I like it
but then I’m probably the only guy in the universe who had Harden #1 last year, so maybe it’s just me :P
Wall reminds me so much of the Mayo situation – the fans and media hype him into something that has nothing to do with his basketball game. I like his game a lot , but not his attitude – which in fact makes my opinion of him the opposite of my opinion of Mayo…wait, what was my point again?
Nice job.
No
or yes – they both have attitude issues, they’re both talented. Assuming they both survive the background checks, I’d have no problem drafting either. My draftboard <> Stop-n-pops, but I’m still allowed to like his and think he did a nice job of both putting out a very interesting board and justifying it quite well.
One of the things I LIKE about Wall
is his attitude, given how much of a superstar he is.
Tough to tell at a distance, but he seems like a guy who cares about winning and, for a guy who knew he was only there for a year, seemed to not be preoccupied with getting his own.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly.
And I think a reason for a lot of his statistical shortcomings has to do with this. I loved watching Kentucky this year, and they were on ESPN just about every night, so I watched Wall and Cousins a lot.
I got the impression from Wall that he was deferring alot because he knew he had talent around him, but every so often he’d decide he was going to take over, and then you could see some serious NBA potential. Statistical scores be damned, I think he’s the number 1 pick, adn worth creating roster imbalance for.
Put Wall
next to an outstanding outside shooter, whether that be at wing or 2 guard, then that would be even more fun to watch. He’s constantly penetrating and dishing. Kentucky didn’t really have any outside marksmen assists came mostly from drawing bigs and dumping off to either Cousins or Patterson when their man had to try and stop Wall’s penetration. That’s why I don’t mind keeping Al if we get Wall. Al will not be forced to try to force things one on one as much, he’ll get some easier baskets. We would need to add some shooters around Wall and a high flyer or 2 to catch some ally oops. I wonder if Coffee Black is available?
Your 2010 Wolves Starters: Wall, J. Anderson, Granger, Al, Whiteside
Agree, if the keep Wall, then keep Al
If they keep Rubio and get Turner, keep Love and trade Al.
If they get Cousins or Favors, let the trades begin.
If we land Wall I am 100% behind doing almost anything to trade for Granger. If you’re confident that Wall is a #1 guy, Granger would be an awesome #2 guy whose skills were completely complementary to Walls. Keep Jefferson down low as your #3, “dump it into the post when you need a bucket down low” guy and I think that team is going to be very good for a long time.
I see now that you’re also a fan of that idea, so rock on!
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
No McCamey?
Just wondering why Deron Williams Lite is not on the list…. He’s my sleeper of the draft….
Your 2010 Wolves Starters: Wall, J. Anderson, Granger, Al, Whiteside
Great board, SNP.
I think that you have a good general break down of the tiers. heck, I can also understand your breakdown of the top 4. I think you qualified your placement of Wall very specifically. If we are truly running a triangle, that system devalues the PG, especially a PG with the skill set of Wall (as opposed to one that can shoot like Curry). Not considering system or personnel, Wall is a pretty certain top 2 I think.
For the Wolves, selecting Wall is a bit more of a gamble. He has top level talent, and he will be good. Is he the best available player for the Triangle? No. Evan Turner probably grades out as the most certain to have a solid and immediate impact. Cousins is the wild card. What is his true size? Can you scout out the personality flags? He could be the best player in the draft to truly build a franchise around or JR Rider.
Favors would be 4th for me, for the Wolves. He certainly looks to have a great, great upside, but so much of that is conjecture at this point. I would rather have a log-jam at PG with Wall/Flynn/Sessions and the rights to Rubio to work out than figure out what to do with Love/Jefferson/Favors/Darko (?)/ rights to Pekovic. Favors could be the best in that list in a few years, but do you use a lottery spot on a position that your best 2 players already play? (This concern is of course mitigated by trades for picks or players)
Players and Fit...
I see a lot of posts on players fitting our team philosophy, the triangle, etc. I would hope that Rambis would be given a max of 3 seasons. And frankly I don’t think he’ll produce enough for him to be around long term. So to say this player fits, and this one doesn’t, I think people are paying WAY to much attention to that. The triangle will be dead in the Fall of 2012 and hopefully we’ll hire a coach with a more traditional style of offense. Give it a few years and you’ll be slapping yourself for ever saying we should have taken Turner over Wall.
Your 2010 Wolves Starters: Wall, J. Anderson, Granger, Al, Whiteside
for me..
…it goes deeper than just the specific system that rambis is running. i just don’t think it’s a good bet to build around point guards….no matter what you’re running. even when the triangle dies (and it will), the track record of teams built around point guards isn’t all that great. you need someone at that position who can distribute, hit open shots, defend, and not turn the ball over. you don’t need uber athletes and scorers there. that’s why rubio is interesting. he’s hopefully a superior version of what you really need at that position.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I tend to agree...
But couldn’t Wall dominate in the scorer’s role you need next to Rubio? Yes, Evan Turner is bigger, but Wall’s athletic ability and explosiveness are much higher… I guess I just don’t see much real evidence that Wall would be a worse fit next to Rubio than Turner.
I’d LOVE to see those two playing together. Ricky facilitating the action to big men and shooters, Wall taking over and creating his own shots.
Me too
The “too many points” meme is a little less winning when you’re talking about two guys with solid size, one of whom is an out-of-this-world athletic freak, and both of whom seem likely to (eventually) be able to defend twos pretty well.
I could live with having that problem, I really could.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
I completely agree that neither we nor the team should worry about
fit with the triangle or any system really. Too much is made of that. Get the best players you can, put together the best roster you can. Have confidence that your coach can figure out how to make it work, or replace the coach.
We Are the Washington Generals
by Eric in Madison on Apr 26, 2010 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions
While I hate to draft for need
I see the essential problem of not just needing a huge upgrade at the wings, but needing the kind of impact players at this position who can become the focus of our offense. It’s not that having too many redundant bigs or PGs is a bad thing, but how many of those players can be turned into the kind of impact wing players the team needs? Who does Jefferson, Love, or the rights to Rubio or Pekovic bring back?
Every team fits players into a system...
Maybe the top pick isn’t chosen that way, but do I want guys with the other picks that can fit into an uptempo style? Hell yes. The consistent winners in every sport make draft picks partially because of how they fit into a system. Yes, talent matters, but all things being relatively equal, the guy who fits the system is the obvious choice. For all of this hand-wringing about the triangle, why doesn’t anyone focus on the much bigger problem: the Wolves lost because most of their top players and role players didn’t work in an uptempo system. Becoming a consistently effective uptempo team is much more of a priority than shoring up the halfcourt offense.
by pagingstanleyroberts on Apr 26, 2010 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Your last sentence is right on the mark
Kahn has talked about being uptempo all along, the triangle is a side issue when compared to uptempo. Kahn realizes uptempo isn’t just about winning, but giving fans a fun product to watch. We all want to get to the Finals, but reality is only about five teams per decade make the Finals from the Western Conference, so fun has to be a factor.
They lost because they forced pace with a young roster, anyway
For all of this hand-wringing about the triangle, why doesn’t anyone focus on the much bigger problem: the Wolves lost because most of their top players and role players didn’t work in an uptempo system
Pace is definitely an undersold explanation for what happened this season, relative to the tricycle.
Look around at some other emerging teams and how they came together. There aren’t that many examples of teams that, while still extremely young, decided to push the pace and had it work out. When that did work, it was with rosters a lot better balanced than T’wolves 09-10. (Sacramento, and they had Divac and Webber up front.)
Rambis this year was like a kid with a half-assembled kite, trying to get it in the air by running even faster.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
He's as much as said so.
Kahn came in before he’d made a single move last summer and answered “I think we need to be a running team” to the basic introductory questions. He talked about Phoenix.
(Dropstep made an argument in another thread that the Wolves’ pace numbers this year reflected their shoddy defense at least as much as their actually pushing the ball…. I don’t know, both Kahn and Rambis expressed satisfaction that they’d pushed it this year.)
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
w00t, really good stuff. It’s made it a 3 player top1 tier. At least this makes me feel a bit mor easy about dropping a spot :).
If we’d keep it, who do you think we should pick realistically?
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
@16
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
by Wim (Belgium) on Apr 26, 2010 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Hopefully
we will be forced to chose from X Henry, Anderson, Whiteside or Udoh. I’m hoping 2 or more of them falls to that point and we’ll have a choice.
Your 2010 Wolves Starters: Wall, J. Anderson, Granger, Al, Whiteside
Roundhouse was wondering when he'd be unbanned...
because he really wants to comment on your draft board.
Now you’re just picking a fight :). But I’ll stop feeding the troll and leave you be in peace
Official Kahn/Rambis band-wagon rider since 2009
by Wim (Belgium) on Apr 27, 2010 1:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Always nice to see our own opinions confirmed )
My feelings on this draft can be summed up in three bullet points:
1 – Cousins! Cousins! Cousins!
2 – Don’t draft Wes Johnson with anything above the 15th pick
3 – We sure as hell better not get the 5th pick and I’m not entirely sure about the 4th (Favors is hard for me to assess)
In other news:
On this side: College Wolf, Tim Allen and Oceanary
On the other side: people who like math.
p.s. TA & Ocean, I apologize for grouping you with CW, low blow I realize, but in anything involving “Damned Statistics!” you’re so reliably anti that it’s hard not to.
I’m a little weary of this. Can’t we just have stats based discussions which you don’t need to join in on and “what we see” based discussions where you’re thoughtful posts are always a pleasure to read?
I really do like what you have to say, but on anything statistical it feels like a division within a church and I don’t look forward to the ensuing decades long holy war.
How do we heal the Great Canis Hoopus Rift? Will PoorDick have to nail 95 theses to the front page of the site?
I don't feel like I mentioned anything having to do with advanced stats in this thread
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I think I like math
or at least I have a piece of paper signed by Nils Hasselmo hanging above my computer that indicates something along those lines. I found myself agreeing with the three-headed monster a lot, perhaps I’ve forgotten how to count.
by Rumblebee on Apr 26, 2010 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
yeah...you're really really off
huh? this is nuts! i agree with most of the comments i scanned…you’re nuts if you think this is a good draft board. HANG ON! ARE YOU REALLY KEVIN MCFAIL?
Anyhow. We have to sign either Wall or Turner. Cousins is great but he should be playing the four in the NBA and we already have enough of those. To draft a four is nuts. So, we take Turner and trade Al and Flynn for the fifth pick and take Johnson. Your comment about his lag in the middle of the season is kinda right. It was actually later in the season than that and he had an injured shooting hand. Everyone who watched college basketball knows that. He looked great once he was healthy again. He can shoot from anywhere and his defense is great. Long arms. Doesn’t need the ball to be effective. Catch and shoot guy. Perfect match for Turner.
Is it sad I'm hoping the Wolves get the 2nd pick?
I feel that’s the safest spot we can be and not feel bad for drafting Turner as a whole. Personally I wouldn’t mind taking him first.
Teams are looking for a top tear player: a #1 so to say. I think having 3 #2’s are as good as having a #1, #2 and #3. That said, I can see Turner as a 2, and Rubio as a 2. And Jefferson to me is more of a 3 (2 on offensive end and bad on defense). If we could package a trade or somehow draft or get a free agent that is a 2 worthy, I think we would be well on our way to something. But that’s a big if.
Where's the statistics....
that determines whether your drafted player is going to be a nut case? Would Michael Beaseley please stand up? I admire your guts to buck the trend SnP. If you were GM and was really hell bent on Cousins, why not draft Wall whom everyone wants then trade down for another asset?
Yes, statistically Cousins could be seen as superior, but there’s a reason most have Cousins lower down and his mental aspect and general character can not be measured by statistics alone.
Seriously, drafting Cousins before Wall is a really bad move, and I assure you Kahn will lose his job over this. Cousins will probably fold under the expectations of being a high pick and we’ll have a Kandi man scenario again.
It’s a no from me. Wall and Turner must be our top picks… if not then we trade up.
Cousins isn't another Kandi Man
If he blows up, it’ll be more, I don’t know…. More explosive. That comparison would stop at “bust #1 pick.”
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Good point
I would be PO’d if the Wolves grabbed Cousins over Turner, mainly because of positional needs, but Cousins has at worst a ten percent chance of being a Kandi Man like bust.
It was mentioned above..
…but you obviously would need to take into account draft value if Wall is on the board and other teams want him. This is just how I would rank who I think is the best player, not the most valuable pick.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Interesting Mock
Flipping cousins and wall is what i think the top 4 should look like although i would consider turner at 1.
My question is why so low on johnson? (not that 9 is that low)
First i know he has his problems but let me try to explain some of them.
Age-depends on what you think of age but a guys whos 23 isnt too old for us and hes had time off so if you think like football he doesnt have too much wear and tear.
Dry spell-Didnt he have a hand injury that messed up his shooting? A hand injury would really effect his shooting and taking out that month he would have 56 fg% and 48 3pt%
Zone-Flynn’s issues scare me a little but i dont remember where but i thought i read he played man a iowa st and actually did a good job of it.
Handles-i think this is his biggest problem but his shot is good enough to force people to guard him and he is quick enough to take 1 step, dribble, and elevate to get his shot off. Also assume we can get turner first and rubio comes over he shouldnt have to do much dribbling. Alot of his points would come off lobs like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxl8—py1Z8&feature=related
However if were getting someone to catch lobs could we please give this guy a try just for fun??? (im not talking about amare)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ovGYI6BWQ
With our three 1st round picks...
I try to get Wall, Anderson, and Orton. We will likely do some dealing, but we have many pieces to play with.
Maybe send Sessions/Brewer/Jefferson to the Knicks for Gallinari/Chandler/Curry if the dollars work out.
2010/2011
1. Wall/Flynn
2. Anderson/Ellington/Vasquez (2nd round)
3. Gallinari/Chandler/Gomes
4. Love/Pekovic/Hollins
5. Milicic/Orton/Curry/Jawai
Orton may not be around at that last pick
but I kind of like that line-up as a semi-realistic option.
*claws at eyes*
I do not like that trade. Wilson Chandler is hyped up by New York fans, but he’s not any better than Brewer. Call that a wash, and we’re trading Sessions and Jefferson for Gallinari? Barf.
Chandler made Brewer
look pretty bad head to head :)
But I agree, while I am looking for ways to get rid of Jefferson, I don’t think this is a deal we should pursue.
I like Cousins a lot too, probably would still take Turner 1st though. I hope we’re scouting Cousins thoroughly, specifically the character stuff. If he measures 6’11" at 270# with good length he’s a legit center.
There’s been some interest here in an Al to Detroit deal for their pick and Prince. I don’t know if I’m that impressed from the talent level difference from 6 to 16 really…unless we used their pick to make a move for Cousins. I’ve said this elsewhere, but my ideal would be to deal Al/Utah pick to Detroit for Prince/6, then use Pekovic to move up for Cousins at 4 if he falls. Unlikely, but it’s fun to think of a Turner/Cousins draft.
That's almost real enough to believe.
I’m going to stop thinking about it immediately before I’m disappointed.
Questionable Character is Questionable Character
There have been all sorts of rumors about his character but I honestly have no idea what the real deal is.
You said it yourself SnP. And where there’s smoke there’s fire. Take a wildly immature 20 year old and put him in Minneapolis. Surround him with young players and a few vets that have never come close to being on a .500 team (and this is always massively underplayed on CH) and have never won in the NBA. Give him a coach who wants to force him into the triangle. Put him down in the low post where sadly your other best player only feels comfortable. Give him a shoot first PG who is unfamiliar with running an NBA offense. Oh yeah, I like where this is going.
by Son of Gerald Green on Apr 26, 2010 10:03 PM CDT reply actions 4 recs
And where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Should we really be building a team based on cliche’s? He definitely shows his passion on a basketball court, but does that make him wildly immature? Are you willing to give away someone who could be the best player in this draft class because our team hasn’t won enough to be able to handle developing young basketball player? So, for example, all the rest of the losing teams in the lottery should let winning franchises like the Jazz take the best player available because Jerry Sloan is tough enough to handle him?
The worst documented problems he’s had are his short fuse when constantly being fouled in the high school level. He lost his cool in high school several times, and that is where he earned his reputation. Being from Alabama and going to an SEC school, all of his opponents knew the scouting report on Cousins was to foul him and watch him go crazy. He by all accounts remained calm and did not have an episode resembling anything in high school. Then, in his final game of the season, the game with probably the most viewers of any game he played all season, he gets into a verbal spat with Calipari while leaving the court. Without digging deeper and interviewing him, are you willing to cross a player off the draft board with his talent level because your scared of the worst case scenario?
I’m of the opinion that what this team needs more than anything is a Franchise Player, and knowing whether Cousins is taking 3 forms of anti-psychotics or rather that he just handled the recruiting process poorly is important. How often has a freshman center with his size performed like Cousins…rarely to never. We better not just dismiss him as immature and pass on him while yet another team drafting behind us hits gold with a ROY candidate. We drafted Jonny Flynn because he farts rainbows and missed out on Curry, let’s not make a similar mistake with Cousins and at least dig deeper beyond cliches.
Agreed.
Wall and Turner are a clear 1 and 2 in my opinion, just because they don’t seem to have anywhere near the flame-out potential that Cousins does. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think Cousins’ upside is as high as those guys, because I do.
I actually could very easily talk myself into being excited about a Cousins draft. For one, it would lead to the trading of Al Jefferson, which would be a good thing. And for two, the guy’s going to put up some sick numbers. Like, next year.
I also object to talk about how Favors’ athleticism “fits” better with the current roster and with Rubio. We don’t even know if Rubio is going to A) come over and B) actually be good. I know, I know, I think both A and B will come true, but it’s not certain enough to base this big of a decision on. Cousins is better. Draft him. Period. He can displace whatever we have on the roster at the moment.
I’m also just as, if not more, scared of Favors simply never “getting it” than I am of Cousins going psycho. We can talk about how the franchise can’t afford to draft a guy with character issues who will go crazy. True. We also can’t afford to draft a high-upside/low-production guy who doesn’t pan out, and then watch Cousins dominate the NBA for a team like Sacramento. Neither player is a sure thing of course, but I have to object to the idea that Favors is a safer pick because he doesn’t occasionally lose his temper.
Yes. Let's build a team based on clichés.
We’ll only draft players who take things one game at a time.
Our interview questions will all be lines from “Five Easy Pieces.” First player to tell the front office to make a chicken sandwich and stick the chicken between their knees, we draft.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Wondering if Cousins will go psycho is like...
Asking whether the Pope poops in the woods. Lets burn that bridge when we get there.
Fail Fail Fail
Only character problems in High School???
Yeah, ok. Believe whatever you want.
You “forgot” about him getting into it with the Louisville guy maybe? Like, just a little forearm to the head. If so, here’s a link: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/12734436/combustible-cousins-could-incinerate-kentuckys-title-dream
Maybe you also forgot he punched a fan in the face?
Those are just the first two incidents I remembered off the top of my head. I would be shocked if there was anything more!
/not really
by College Wolf on Apr 27, 2010 8:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Hey, the guy deserves
a 2nd, er 3rd, er (?) chance, which is the same thing they’ll be saying about Cousins in five years when he is playing for his third team!
Might be another KG
look out RRickert
by WinTheLottery on Apr 27, 2010 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Epic Fail Cubed to the Nth Power
The illustrious crew at the College Hoops journal has an eye witness account from a college student of the opposing fan that rushed the court after a win says Cousins threw him in a chicken wing and cold cocked him in the face. A local South Carolina sports reporter said he witnessed it as well. Why didn’t this get more press? Why didn’t anybody else witness this? Where were the Cameras, this game was televised?
Am I allowed to quote articles that paint a different story?
How about
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=jn-cousins031610
That’s only one guy who thinks Cousins isn’t crazy, I would be shocked if there were more people who see threw these BS accusations
/not really
It would really be interesting to look back
over the last couple decades, and see how many top-5 picks flamed out or underachieved because of personality issues.
agreed on the college hoops journal as possibly biased
but what about the CBS story?
I guess one can decide that if KG and Kobe can do it, so can Cousins?
by littleboxes on Apr 27, 2010 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions
CBS Article
Claims that because he threw a forearm at another guys head, Cousins volitility is going to eventually cost him. That he could have been ejected in the first minute of the game. Then the unbiased part of the story is told
Before we go any farther let me say that, yes, I know the game was rough on both sides, and that, yes, I realize Cousins took a knee to the head in the scramble, which seemed to spark the forearm shiver. But that’s beside the point. The point is that Cousins blasted Swopshire in a pretty obvious way, and that a different crew with the guts to eject a high-profile player from a high-profile game would’ve probably watched that replay on the monitor and ejected a high-profile player from a high-profile game.
So a 19 year old hot head gets takes a knee to the head in a physical game and responds by throwing a forearm. Is it a wise decision? No, definitely not. The writer is right, it could get him ejected and he is bound to earn some Technical fouls in the nba, but the article also says what happened after that forearm sequence:
Either way, the officials only issued a technical, which allowed Cousins to play on. He finished with 18 points and 18 rebounds and was the difference in Kentucky’s 71-62 victory here at Rupp Arena.
So even in a game where he lost his cool and was pushed to the brink, this insane mindset that is the worry of all the NBA scouts supposedly, led him to 18 points, 18 rebounds and a dominating performance. This may be a guy that gets angry, and gets competitive, but he continues to perform and even play inspired ball through such adversity. Again, I view this passion, energy, and competitveness as a strength, not a weakness, especially in a big guy. The mindset that Cousins has to not take any sh!t from anybody is why I think he’s going to be better at defense than DX projects. Garnett had that same attitude although definitely with better athletic ability.
I couldn't take this article in
because I still can’t get over the fact that a national writer got away with using farther instead of futher… or maybe he was getting interviewed on a walk?
It's about risk reward
OK, I agree the Wolves need a star, how much risk do you take with hopefully a top 3 pick to acquire a potential star.
Let’s say Cousins has the best odds of being a star, say 20%; as well as a 20% chance of being a bust, with a 60% chance of being a good starter.
Then say that Turner has a 5% chance of being a star, a 5% chance of being a bust, and 90% chance of being a good starter.
I guess if you are all in on trying to land a star in this draft, you would choose Cousins between the two. If he succeeds, it turns out great. But what if he bombs, where is this franchise in three years? They do need a great player, but they also need good players. I would rather take the sure thing, then try another way to find a star (Rudy Gay as a free agent perhaps).
BTW, some things are obvious and don’t need deep digging, when a college freshman walks off the court and has a yelling match with his head coach, that is a MASSIVE red flag, especially when the coach is a proven winner like Calipari. If Cousins as a college freshman can’t control showing up a potentially hall of fame college coach, how much respect is he going to have for Rambis??
Look, I am not trying to excuse all his behavior, I’m just saying you have to figure out what’s really going on. I disagree with your characterization that Coach Cal is a proven winner, actually he’s a proven cheater as a recruiter, and even with those illegal recruits, he still hasn’t won anything. In Kentucky’s biggest game of the season he makes no adjustments while wathcing his team shoot 2-35 from Three and gets beat by a vastly inferior team. Cousins has one shot to win a title before turning pro and I guess he’s supposed to ignore his competitive fire, ignore his size and Kentucky’s size advantage and the flawed game plan, and take one for the team. I’m esctatic that the guy wants to win so much he boils over at times. That can’t be taught. It’s part of what makes him great, and you see it as a red flag. Agree to disagree.
If Rudy Gay had half the heart DeMarcus Cousins has and played with half his passion he would be first team All-NBA, instead he’s going to get overpaid and underperform for the next 6 years because it has never been apparent during his time at UCONN or in the NBA that he gives a rats ass for anything more than his paycheck.
I won't argue your Gay point
I used him as an example because a lot of posters here really like him, and I was too lazy to think up some other name.
Calipari is more of a winner as a coach than Rambis. It’s easy to use the cheat card, and I actually thought about it, but if he is cheating to get recruits, wouldn’t it be a possibility that Cousins benefited from this, and therefore should be even less likely to show up his coach. We’ll have to agree to disagree, but there is never an excuse for a college freshman to show up his coach, never.
I would have made the same judgment about Kevin Garnett. People did.
Take a wildly immature 20 year old and put him in Minneapolis. Surround him with young players and a few vets that have never come close to being on a .500 team (and this is always massively underplayed on CH) and have never won in the NBA.
The Wolves when KG arrived here had Isiah “J.R.” Rider as their biggest talent. The worry was similar.
As we all keep saying…. I hope they’re doing their homework.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
by feral on Apr 27, 2010 7:27 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not sure
really, why Wall is in the discussion. Unless we wind up with our worst possible spot in the draft and he is, unexplicably, the guy who falls, he won’t be the pick. POBO Kahn has stated he is building for Rubio, on numerous occasions. The FO has made numerous trips overseas to speak with Blonde Ricky, and if there was any doubt he wasn’t going to come over, it would have been addressed. All of his public statements have been corralled towards letting the public and Rubio know that he is the guy they are waiting for. It’s not even a debate on the Kahnwagon.
So why is Wall in the discussion? Is there any doubt this team will continue to build for his eventual overseas venture? Why are we talking about Wall at all? To quote SnP….what say you?
What in the bloody hell does "thowed" mean?
I actually just found my jottings from last year
from about a month before the draft. It was interesting to look at what I graded some people and what has happened. Keep in mind this was before we had acquired the fifth pick.
For our first pick, I had:
Evans, started as an A and moved him to a B+
Curry as an A
Holiday as a B and moved to an A
Jennings as an A- and moved to a B
DeRozan as a B
For 18: Basically after we got the fifth pick I agree that Kahn took the best route of trading it away, I even had it written down to trade one or both of them before we got the fifth (though I would have tried extremely hard to get Holiday one pick higher or thought about Dejuan Blair).
Daye as an A changed to a B (seems like possibly my biggest mistake? Luckily the Pistons would have covered for me here)
Terrence Williams as a B changed to an A- (looked terrible until the last couple months of the season)
Earl Clark as a C (though I was admittedly very curious about him)
Maynor as a B (if we didn’t get a PG at 6)
For 28:
Calathes as a C
Ellington as an A (Awesome! Completely forgot about this… Probably would have taken Blair at the time though)
In the second round:
I wanted to stash Euros if we used 3 picks in the first, trade them away for something else, or if they dropped:
Jodie Meeks as a B+
Greivis Vasquez as a B-
Taj Gibson as a B+
Since Calathes dropped he probably would have been my first choice easily since I had him in consideration at 28.
I think my ideal draft, after getting the fifth pick would have been:
Rubio, Curry, Holiday, Blair…. It would have sucked trying to get Curry and Holiday floor time together (especially with Rambis), but I still like Holiday’s production as a defender and his potential. Turns out my realistic dream draft wouldn’t have been too bad… 3 guys were available from my top 2 tiers, with Blair being in my low 2nd or high 3rd tier (just bad fit, but at 28, fit be damned).
No game-changers here.
All this mental wanking will probably go for naught. I am far less excited by this year’s draft than last. And the Wolves have managed to make virtually every draft, even highly anticipated ones, disappointing. Everyone talks here like we have a load of arrows in our quiver, but we do not. Teams like Phila or Det or NJ will get the #1 and #2 picks. They are more important to the league. The Wolves are unlikely to get #1 or #2, that’s the reality. They will get crumbs in a less than stellar draft. Even the best of these choices are not of the level of LeBron, Wade, Kobe or Durant. You can ponder what role players we might get with a later first round pick, but this team needs a STAR. For the fans, at the very least. Feeling that Love plays the game the right way while getting stuffed on his put backs and our team falls behind by 18 points every game puts your very franchise in jeopardy. Kahn will not get value for present players. He will not lure significant FA’s. There is no indication yet that our coach can get the best out of his players. He’s still learning. Flynn is worse than hoped. Sessions didn’t get a role. None of the trades or pickups (with the possible slight exception of Darko) have yielded players we would miss if they disappeared completely. Jefferson did not return to pre-injury form. Love actually regressed. Brewer did improve, but I don’t know if I can credit Rambis for that. The team will not improve measurably for years to come. That is greatest possible reality. We are at the nadir of the Minnesota Timberwolves.
The evidence to support most of this:
Pessimism.
completely agreed...
…on the “meh” factor in this draft. Next year is the year they needed all of these picks.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I think this is where you and I
disagree most. I think a lot of guys that you think are going to be in next years draft will wait a year until the CBA effects are known and when there is no potential lockout. So many guys thought about staying this year, but ultimately came out. With no lockout potential next year, that’s still a hard decision for these guys to make. I think it’s just going to sway a lot of decisions next year towards staying another year. The top guys will probably still go (meaning the guaranteed top 5 picks), but after that… I’m guessing a lot of guys with little NBA hope will enter the draft because they have a higher chance of being picked when most of the real talent decides to stay.
I think this is a great draft to have a top 4 pick (which we hopefully will) and a great draft to have a 15-25 pick (we have 2). I agree that there are very few potential stars outside of the top four, but I see a lot of solid contributors… more than just bench players… down until 25. This is especially true at the wing spot (my specific targets include Henry, Johnson, Ebanks, and George), which we are in no large supply of.
So basically, I think we will want all of these picks this year and again in two more years… but not next year. Of course the CBA could get resolved and/or maybe the effect will not be anywhere near what I think it will be.
Really?
Next year could be quite thin. Harrison Barnes might be a great player, but the depth of the draft is likely to be weak. And, Barnes might not be available if David Stern gets his way…welcome 2 and done.
There's going to be a bumper crop of athletes
Barnes, Sullinger, Jones, Vesely, Leslie, and all of the sophs and freshman who couldn’t cut it this year. The bottom of the draft may suck but the lotto will be filled. This year, it’s kind of reversed: there’s some nice bench talent in the later parts of this year’s 1st round but the top is not that deep.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Agreed.
One more reason it will be interesting to see how much revenue-evaporting “development” happens in the coming season, and if the team tries to roll the Utah pick into next year.
By the way, it appears the Hawks are thinking of selling their pick so they can afford to re-up Johnson. Any thoughts on moving Gomes and a future protected first to them for their first this year and the rights to Childress?
Unless the Wolves need to trade the extra picks to move up their own pick
I would be shocked if either the Utah or Charlotte pick doesn’t get moved to next year. I actually think the Charlotte pick might be more likely to be moved, and instead they keep the Utah pick and look for another Ellington type of role player at the end of round 1, plus the Charlotte pick should return a higher pick next season.
Rolling picks to next year
I have no problem making the Utah pick a pick next year but I wouldn’t trade the Charlotte pick for a pick next year unless you were all but assured it would be a lottery pick. The strength of this years draft is it’s depth and the fact that the players in the 8-20 range are all packed fairly closely so the Wolves should be getting some decent value with the Charlotte pick this year. The
If they're selling the pick in order to keep Johnson
then there is no way they’re signing Childress. That would be a great deal if we can make it happen.
Do you really think Vesley will come over?
For a potential half a season? I’m guessing he waits 2 years. I’d say Rubio is more likely in 2011 than Vesley. And I still think Rubio will wait until 2012. Damn…
Then I'm really going to regret upping my 401(k) contribution
and not using the money to buy big screen TVs, booze and lap dances.
Disagree
Quite a bit actually. This reminds me a lot of 2008. Sure, it’s not 2003, but it’s better than 2007 which was 2 and then Horford and then another drop.
Wall, Cousins, and Favors have serious potential and shouldn’t have a problem transitioning to the pros. Turner is the polished player at the top who doesn’t have an athletic/length weakness normally seen in those types of players. Johnson and Davis are good options for those mid-lotto teams who need help and upside. When I compare what I normally think about mid/late lotto to what I think about these guys, I see better length, athleticism, potential and only two would I qualify as “raw” and likely unable to be 20mpg type of players their rookie years.
So yeah, I think this draft is quality. Last year’s was decent and had star potential then some solid, but unspectacular prospects. This one is a step above.
Check out my NBA Draft blog:
http://casperkid23.blogspot.com/
I don't think this issue will be decided until after the lottery
If they get lucky/what they deserve, they may try to move up the Charlotte pick, otherwise they probably used the extra picks to move up their own pick. I really don’t see them bringing in three rookies (not to mention Pekovic), or more specifically three 1st rounders. Might bring in two 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder or Pekovic, but they can’t get too much younger.
I also disagree that this is a poor draft.
I do agree that there aren’t those locks at the top of this draft but this is easily one of the deepest drafts in the last 10 years or so. Just look at last years draft, guys that are going to go in the late lottery would have probably have been drafted at least 5 picks earlier last year.
Accounting for measurements
SnP, have you ever thought to account for measurements in your Hoopus Score?
For example, Love had a great Hoopus Score and was rated #2 by you. I would perhaps bump him down a (small) notch myself just based on his below average 6’ 11.25" wingspan and sub 9-foot standing reach (8’ 10"). On the flipside, I would probably bump guys like Tyreke Evans based on his wingspan (6’ 11.25" – same as Love’s) and standing reach (8’ 8").
Yes, I realize in my “argument” I’m completely cherry-picking my stats.
I just think that the potential for defensive ability depends on wingspan/reach and once a player gets to the NBA and everyone is bigger, it starts to matter more.
I partially agree
Though I wouldn’t bump people up for size. That would result in too many Thabeets, Kandis, Whitesides, etc getting bumped up too much. But I do like knocking people down for size issues at their main position (for example, Foye gets knocked down as a SG, Flynn gets knocked down as a PG (as does Lawson… which I am actually ok with), and Love gets knocked down as a PF… 2 draft mistakes are even more evident, but we might miss out on Love (not that we actually decide, just saying that if the Hoopus score was used, that would be the case… but Love still graded out pretty high, so maybe not!).
Or knock down Foye because he sucked...
and everyone knew it. At least I did. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one, as much as I’d like to take all the credit.
by College Wolf on Apr 27, 2010 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Knock down Love because he's pudgy and unathletic...
another one that wasn’t too hard to see.
by College Wolf on Apr 27, 2010 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Thoughts
- If I had to bet on what player the Wolves walk away with, I’d probably bet Turner, then Wes Johnson, then John Wall, then Derrick Favors. I don’t think there is a scenario where the Wolves draft and keep DeMarcus Cousins. His game is too similar to Al Jefferson’s, and his attitude makes him a high risk to be a complete bust who sets back the franchise that drafts him a few years. His upside is not as high as some think — he’s not particularly tall for an NBA center, he is not athletic by NBA standards, and he doesn’t have the rare Tim Duncan-caliber set of post moves to compensate for a lack of explosive athleticism.
- If we somehow win the lottery, it’ll be hard to pass on John Wall. He runs like a deer and has the ballhandling and body control to thrive in the NBA. If Kahn thinks Wall is more Dwyane Wade than Derrick Rose, it’ll be a no-brainer.
- Turner is the safest pick for the Wolves, and if we pick 3-5, I expect to see a trade up for him. He seems like a future Paul Pierce-type of offensive player — a guy that can really break down defenses and use his size to be an effective passer.
by Andy G on Apr 27, 2010 1:11 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Good points,
and recommended. Cousins could certainly be the best player of the bunch, but I just can’t see Kahn drafting him before moving Love and/or Al. And unless Kahn does have the #1 overall pick, there’s no guarantee Cousins will be there when the Wolves draft.
After all the uncertainty brought on by the Rubio situation, I would be shocked if Turner is available and the Wolves don’t take him. If they draft and keep Wall, it’s an ominous sign as to the likelihood of Rubio ever playing for the Wolves.
and...
I don’t mean to come down too hard on Cousins. I think he could be an All-Star someday. But, I’d bet that he doesn’t play with his first team for more than 5 years, and I’d bet that he butts heads with his first few coaches. That’s not really what the Wolves need, unless the guy has Shaquille O’Neal or Dwight Howard potential. I think Cousins has Al Jefferson potential, which is pretty high, but not high enough to take on a cancerous personality, especially when Al Jefferson is already on your roster.
by Andy G on Apr 27, 2010 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Cousins might be the type of player that gets a Coach fired...
And that’s a plus in my book. Rambis has been terrible.
I understand McCants is available as a free agent.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
That is
almost exactly the way my FO friend sees it. Barring some unexpected measurables/work outs (either plus or minus), expect
If we get #1, we will be forced to take Wall – just too good and so much a sure thing that it can’t be passed up. The question then becomes what to do with Rubio.
At #2, its Turner all the way. By the way, this is the spot my FO friend wants badly – takes the Wall issue off the table. (He believes only Utah would consider Turner over Wall – which would move us to #3 anyway)
At #3, expect Favors and a trade of either Love/Jefferson.
At #4, expect Favors again, as most of the other teams in the lottery are expected to take either Cousins or Johnson.
That is as far as it goes right now.
by Just A Fan on Apr 27, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you--
and if the Wolves get the 4th pick and Cousins is still on the board (i.e. it goes Turner, then Wall, then Johnson), that you think the Wolves would still pick Favors?
Yep
Favors over Cousins. For the exact reason Andy G listed 3 posts above. He believe that Cousins will be too immature and will flame out with his first team. But he also believes that he will have a very long productive NBA career. Just will be too much to handle (immaturity wise) with the young team the Twolves will field over the next few years.
Although I disagree, this is a logical conclusion. I still hope they bring him in to Minneapolis and talk to him. You don’t have to necessarily believe the dog and pony show he and his agent are likely to put on during the pre-draft process, but hopefully someone in the front office is a good judge of character and that their opinion is valued.
In our Hoiberg meeting he wouldn't comment on anyone,
but to ask about how stats and interviews and so on might play into a decision, I asked him specifically about if the Wolves got the #3 and were choosing between Cousins and Favors.
We at least do know that Dean Cooper, in theory, would pipe up to say Cousins had been way more productive in college. Whatever other “He looks like he could” and character stuff came up, we know the Wolves officially have someone to advocate for the wonk-stat perspective.
But, yeah…. Favors fits the running profile Kahn decided on de novo, to top it all off too.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Interesting.
Has your FO friend said given any indication about whether a Rubio-Wall backcourt is even on the table?
And the death sentence at #5?
Any idea what they would di with the #5 pick? Have you heard if there are any other players the Wolves are interested in with the other picks? Any trade discussions been made yet? So many questions.
The impression I get
is that we will NOT pick below 5. We may radically over pay, but we will move up into the top 4.
The draft stuff will heat up big time as soon as Rambis and Kahn return from Europe.
With all the assets they have
I would be upset if they don’t overpay to move up in the draft if necessary. Can’t get ten guys on the floor at once, need top end talent, even if not a star.
agreed...
…and i’ve even heard some talk of turner at the top.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Here the problem with Turner at the top
In the last generation of NBA stars, having elite athleticism was not a requirement. You could be a an elite basketball player with just average athleticism. Think Bird, Dumars, Duncan, Barkely, Stockton, McHale.
But Jordan and Shaq started an evolution. Now, elite athleticism plus above average skills (neither were highly skilled coming into the NBA – they became highly skilled) were the ticket to lead a team.
The current generation is lead by elite athletes. Kobe, LeBron, Durant, KG (in his prime), Howard, Wade. Evans showed the way this year. Wall has that physical talent (and Cousins might). But there is usually only 1 or 2 of these types every year or two.
Turner is not an elite athlete. Can he be like Roy (and possible Curry) and buck the trend? Hard to say. That is what makes the choice so hard. You are betting against the trend.
If we land #1 we have to either take Wall and trade Rubio or swap with #2 or #3 pick up a nice asset. Wall is in too high of demand not to leverage that should we get #1. You can’t draft Turner at #1. That’s not maximizing value.
My belief is that if we land #1 we draft Wall and then trade Rubio plus ??? for pick 2, 3, or 4.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 27, 2010 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions
agreed..
…i think he’s a 3rd option type of guy in the pros on the level of a curry.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
but there's no one else...
…and i think that’s the problem with this draft. you have to take the bpa if you’re the wolves.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
Evans isn’t by any measure an elite athlete. Both subjective measures, like his explosiveness in game, and objective ones like his combine stats show that he’s pretty average for a 6’5 guard. However, there’s something to be said for a guy who combines length, strength, size for his position and excellent finishing abililty, traits II think both Evans and Turner possess.
Obviously you’d rather have a guy with elite athleticism AND skills to boot, but I disagree that it’s a requirement for success. High skill level trumps athleticism every time if you have to choose one, and there are loads of guys out there who are effective players despite not being elite athletes: Pierce, Joe Johnson, Evans, Roy etc.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I agree with the premise of your post but there are two reasons I pick Turner
1. This one’s easy, he fills a glaring need on the team.
2. I just can’t put Wall at the level of LeBron or Wade. He couldn’t even lead his team to the NCAA promised land, playing next to a couple other guys who are going to be in the NBA next season. This thought also applies to Cousins and leads to my 2nd point. Let’s say this draft has a massive amount of quality players, but nobody emerges as a star (think 2007). Then who is the best pick for the Wolves, it has to be Turner. If Wall was a LeBron like sure thing, take him, but I don’t think he has made the case that he is a sure thing.
I know it is unfair to compare him to LeBron, but I just think there have been more obvious stars coming into the draft in recent years.
Athleticism
A few questions about athleticism.
1. Wasn’t Charles Barkley a very above average athlete? The guy was 6’4 and played PF. You can’t do that without some jumping ability.
2. I think you are confusing length with athleticism. I would never describe Durant as athletic. He is very skilled but as far as speed and jumping go is he above average? I’d also say the same thing for Evans and KG.
So basically how do you describe athleticism? I guess my description would have foot speed, jumping ability, and agility. I think you are just listing the best players in the game today and labeling them as athletic when that isn’t necessarily the case.
The word for Sir Charles would be "unique athlete"
Wasn’t Charles Barkley a very above average athlete? The guy was 6’4 and played PF. You can’t do that without some jumping ability.
When your gluteal muscles comprise 45% of your body mass, you can jump all right.
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
At #4, expect Favors again, as most of the other teams in the lottery are expected to take either Cousins or Johnson.
Does this logic imply that our FO thinks other FOs view Johnson as top 3? That seems too high.
by TWolvesFanInLA on Apr 27, 2010 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Birthdays...
For whatever it is worth:
Sessions: 4/11/1986
Ekpe Udoh: 5/20/1987
Kevin Love: 9/07/1988
Evan Turner: 10/27/1988
Jonny Flynn: 2/06/1989
I like Udoh, but he’s a year and a half older then Love. Weird.
I think people forget
how young Love is. It’s a complement to him I suppose that he gets criticized like a vet by the same people who talk about Corey Brewer as a young guy with untapped potential.
It's weird...
That Udoh is a year and a half older then him, and he’s still got a year of college eligibility left!
It will be very interesting to look at Love, Turner, and Flynn in a couple years
and see who ends up being the best player. Could be an example of the value of staying in college and developing your game.
Another case in point about this type of perception:
Randy Foye was over 23 when he played his first game in Minnesota. Kevin Love was just over 20.
And yet the accepted outline of Foye’s career was that he was going to develop much more than Love, who is assumed by many posters for some reason to have already experienced his entire arc of development. Three years in, people were still talking about Foye turning into a point guard like Chauncey Billups — who was always basically a point guard (and who was 21 when he came into the league himself).
"It has come to the editor’s attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."
Dominique Jones
Hey SnP, did you see this article on Dominique Jones?
I wonder how he looks in your numbers.
Let me get this straight
Your rigid adherence to a system which has turned out big men as its top prospect every year (bias?) causes you to rate DeMarcus Cousins as the player you want above Turner and Wall in spite of everything we know about him that isn’t reflected in the numbers (bad attitude, bad fit). Then, Hassan Whiteside grades out as the next best propect out of everyone, and despite the fact that he’d cost us only our Charlotte pick rather than the top pick, you are now willing to deviate from the numbers, cite all the negatives, and say that you still don’t want him.
Unlike some, I have no problem with someone applying a statistic and reporting the results without deference to the prevailing opinion. But how about some consistency?
Say what you will about Whiteside. I know about the red flags as well as you do. (They’re the reason he’s projected to be a late lottery pick in the first place.) He’s still the most highly sought after commodity in basketball, a potential defensive anchor center. In addition to blocking shots, he looks to be adept at defending face up big men and hitting mid-range jumpers, i.e. he has skill 1, skill 2, and skill 3 in what we need from a big man. And now it comes out that his stats are really, really solid.
I don’t see how you can pass up all that when all he’ll cost is the Charlotte pick. If he pans out, is there a team that needs him more than the Timberwolves?
by John Doe on Apr 27, 2010 1:34 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I am not in a position to comment, but I know the DX would beg to differ about the "defensive anchor" description
Whiteside’s weaknesses as a prospect are often just as glaring as his strengths. His main issue revolves around his extremely underdeveloped frame, which hinders him on the offensive end, but more importantly makes him a constant target for post-up plays and renders him an exceptionally poor man to man defender against average college big men. Whiteside gives up deep position in the post with the greatest of ease—seemingly not even fighting back at times— getting out of his stance quickly, bringing his hands down, and downright giving up on plays, thinking he’ll simply be able to recover and come up with a block, which at this level can indeed be the case on occasion.
Doesn’t anchoring the defense mean more about helping erase the mistakes of others than the guy’s 1 on 1 post D? It’s not really fair to cherry pick one part of his scouting report when you left out the part about his lateral quickness and ridiculous weakside shotblocking.
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
I agree both come into consideration...
but anchor implies both, not great in one area and severely lacking in another.
I didn’t mean to ignore his shot-blocking, but I figured since that is what everyone always talks about, it didn’t need to be brought up.
i don’t have an opinion on Whiteside. I have never seen him play, but I like the numbers he puts up. However, if he really is as awful of a man-up post-defender as DX implies, that is a serious concern, and not something that we need more of.
Sure
It’s definitely a concern, but it seemed like you were saying he wasn’t what we were looking for or that he couldn’t be an impact defender because of that snippet you posted. Granted, you want a big who can do all 3 of those things ideally, but if you have a guy who does 2 out of the 3 main areas of big man defense: pick and roll, post D and weakside shot-blocking, at a high level, I’m OK with taking a gamble that he’ll get better as a post defender.
Plus, a lot of ++ shot blockers aren’t great post defenders. Hell, Camby looks like he’s about 240 lbs, and I doubt he’s ever been great at holding position against true big C’s, but he’s still giving you beastly overall defense, you know what I mean?
When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True story.
Well
I guess I look at it this way (and maybe SnP does too?):
Cousins had slightly better production, has more than legit size, developed post moves, can establish position on both sides of the court, was the target of most teams, and just has a lot less bust potential. I’d take Cousins 10 times out of 10 without hesitation.
I agree that I would probably take Whiteside with the Charlotte pick (Depending on who is available, there are a few guys I would definitely prefer) and that this double-standard is a little questionable, but there is definitely justification for the difference, I just think it wasn’t really mentioned because he wasn’t comparing them specifically.
An additional point that I noticed almost immediately: Everyone talks about Cousins’ nice FTRate, but isn’t quite a bit of that due to teams playing such a rough game against him? I think a lot of guys were just told to go out there and use up your 5 fouls to get into his head. He obviously still gets to the line on his own, but I think this was a definite contributor that must be recognized.
Whiteside
I don’t understand how Whiteside can have the second best hoopus score, but be downgraded to the 3rd tier because of ‘red flags’ when Cousins is not. It seems like you are selectively being subjective, which is okay, I guess, but I’d like you to expand a bit more, as it’s very contradictory. Is it based on games you’ve seen Whiteside play? The guy was statistically dominant, he has great size, and the only legit knock against his stats are inferior competition. Kentucky didn’t exactly have a brutal schedule, either.
by Mac of the MIAC on Apr 27, 2010 2:04 PM CDT reply actions
The tiers are intentionally subjective.
Trotting out a formula that reduces every player’s college season to a single number is bound to produce a lot of unexpected results. Rather than going by the Hoopus Score exclusively, which would lead to calling Jarvis Varnado the third best player available, he first organized the prospects into the tiers dictated by conventional scouting wisdom (i.e. Wall/Turner/Cousins/Favors in Tier 1, roughly 6 guys in Tier 2, and then Whiteside and Co. in Tier 3, the guys expected to be picked 10th through 20th.) The second step was to rank them by Hoopus Score only. Step 3 was the write-up for each, in which he gave his personal thoughts on each player, whether he agreed with their Score, how they would fit into the Wolves’ lineup, etc.
The first step isn’t even Stop-n-Pop’s opinion, but rather the consensus. The second step is just applying the same formula to everyone. But it’s this third step that I take issue with in the case of Whiteside. Yes, he has the red flags, but he still got the second highest score of any college player, and he still has the exact skill set we need in a center. If we really place stock in this metric, I don’t know how we can disregard such an extremely favorable result on a guy we should be trying to talk ourselves into, not out of.
A question for Stop-n-Pop
What software did you use to calculate all these results? Did you have to input all the data for each college player yourself, or is there a database somewhere that provides you with a pre-formatted spreadsheet of everything you need?
wow..
…mine’s not even that fancy. i need to upgrade to color coordinated.
Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com
I'm sorry if I missed it . . .
. . . but can you throw my man Gordon Hayward into your Magic Number Machine?
I second that
also could you throw Blake Hoffarber in there? im just curious what his score would be.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this
But with the talk of Al/Utah to Detroit for Prince/6 (assuming this happens)- what are thoughts on a Turner and Johnson draft leaving with a lineup of:
PG: (Rubio) Flynn/Sessions
SG: Turner, Brewer/Ellington
SF: Prince, Johnson/Brewer
PF: Love, Pekovic
C: Milicic, 16 Pick/Pekovic
This team would be somewhat improved next year, with major potential for the future. Johnson’s ballhandling issues are masked with Turner and Rubio in the backcourt and his role pretty much becomes spot up shooter/lob catcher in a few years.
I just don’t think its realistic to expect Cousins or Favors to fall to the 6, and I’m not convinced teams would accept a 6/Pekovic trade to move up to the 4 spot in the draft since this seems to be a 4 prize draft.
I like both players better
as a package deal.
If Turner’s your SG, you need shooting and athleticism at the 3.
If Johnson’s your SF, you need ball-handling and playmaking at the 2.
too bad I'm married
I’m sorry if I missed it . . .
. . . but can you throw my man Gordon Hayward into your Magic Number Machine?
by PoorDick on Apr 27, 2010 2:17 PM PDT reply actions
Magic Number Machine would so be my 2nd Choice as a user name on a dating website. PoorDick would be #1, too bad it’s already taken
by Son of Gerald Green on Apr 27, 2010 9:09 PM CDT reply actions

by 





















